Charles Barkley: "MLK never spoke about black rights, but about civil rights"

Originalman

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
47,127
Reputation
12,150
Daps
204,799
Charles and Shaq are on the same page when it comes to tapdancing

I dont think Kenny thinks like them but he may get forced into softening his stances for the show.

Kenny stance might not be the strongest but he has more integrity than both barkley and Shaq.

Shaq is expecially all about the money. He isn't gonna do anything to fukk up his money. For years shaq played the big dumb role to keep the money rolling in. Shaq also is a muslim (minister farrakhan was at his wedding and reception now let that marinate) and made sure folks never knew he was muslim cause he didn't want to fukk his money up.
 
Last edited:

NYC Rebel

...on the otherside of the pond
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
68,098
Reputation
10,469
Daps
229,754
My favorite MLK speak was his speech at the APA's Annual Convention in Washington, D.C. In 1967 where he challenged the nations psychologists to take white folks to task for their mental illness towards black people called. "
The Role of the Behavioral Scientist in the Civil Rights Movement"

He dropped BARS!! :wow:


It is always a very rich and rewarding experience when I can take a brief break from the day-to-day demands of our struggle for freedom and human dignity and discuss the issues involved in that struggle with concerned friends of good will all over the nation. It is particularly a great privilege to discuss these issues with members of the academic community, who are constantly writing about and dealing with the problems that we face and who have the tremendous responsibility of molding the minds of young men and women all over the country.

The Civil Rights Movement needs the help of social scientists
In the preface to their book, 'Applied Sociology' (1965), S. M. Miller and Alvin Gouldner state: 'It is the historic mission of the social sciences to enable mankind to take possession of society.' It follows that for Negroes who substantially are excluded from society this science is needed even more desperately than for any other group in the population.

For social scientists, the opportunity to serve in a life-giving purpose is a humanist challenge of rare distinction. Negroes too are eager for a rendezvous with truth and discovery. We are aware that social scientists, unlike some of their colleagues in the physical sciences, have been spared the grim feelings of guilt that attended the invention of nuclear weapons of destruction. Social scientists, in the main, are fortunate to be able to extirpate evil, not to invent it.

If the Negro needs social sciences for direction and for self-understanding, the white society is in even more urgent need. White America needs to understand that it is poisoned to its soul by racism and the understanding needs to be carefully documented and consequently more difficult to reject. The present crisis arises because although it is historically imperative that our society take the next step to equality, we find ourselves psychologically and socially imprisoned. All too many white Americans are horrified not with conditions of Negro life but with the product of these conditions-the Negro himself.

White America is seeking to keep the walls of segregation substantially intact while the evolution of society and the Negro's desperation is causing them to crumble. The white majority, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change, is resisting and producing chaos while complaining that if there were no chaos orderly change would come.

Negroes want the social scientist to address the white community and 'tell it like it is.' White America has an appalling lack of knowledge concerning the reality of Negro life. One reason some advances were made in the South during the past decade was the discovery by northern whites of the brutal facts of southern segregated life. It was the Negro who educated the nation by dramatizing the evils through nonviolent protest. The social scientist played little or no role in disclosing truth. The Negro action movement with raw courage did it virtually alone. When the majority of the country could not live with the extremes of brutality they witnessed, political remedies were enacted and customs were altered.

These partial advances were, however, limited principally to the South and progress did not automatically spread throughout the nation. There was also little depth to the changes. White America stopped murder, but that is not the same thing as ordaining brotherhood; nor is the ending of lynch rule the same thing as inaugurating justice.

After some years of Negro-white unity and partial success, white America shifted gears and went into reverse. Negroes, alive with hope and enthusiasm, ran into sharply stiffened white resistance at all levels and bitter tensions broke out in sporadic episodes of violence. New lines of hostility were drawn and the era of good feeling disappeared.

The decade of 1955 to 1965, with its constructive elements, misled us. Everyone, activists and social scientists, underestimated the amount of violence and rage Negroes were suppressing and the amount of bigotry the white majority was disguising.

Science should have been employed more fully to warn us that the Negro, after 350 years of handicaps, mired in an intricate network of contemporary barriers, could not be ushered into equality by tentative and superficial changes.

Mass nonviolent protests, a social invention of Negroes, were effective in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma in forcing national legislation which served to change Negro life sufficiently to curb explosions. But when changes were confined to the South alone, the North, in the absence of change, began to seethe.

The freedom movement did not adapt its tactics to the different and unique northern urban conditions. It failed to see that nonviolent marches in the South were forms of rebellion. When Negroes took over the streets and shops, southern society shook to its roots. Negroes could contain their rage when they found the means to force relatively radical changes in their environment.

In the North, on the other hand, street demonstrations were not even a mild expression of militancy. The turmoil of cities absorbs demonstrations as merely transitory drama which is ordinary in city life. Without a more effective tactic for upsetting the status quo, the power structure could maintain its intransigence and hostility. Into the vacuum of inaction, violence and riots flowed and a new period opened.

Urban riots.
Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
62,697
Reputation
5,977
Daps
165,534
Charles changed his style up once he retired and went on tv. Dude was one of the most hated black athletes when he played. Dude would go in on white folks and even call out the media on racism.

I remember him going in on media members as a 76er and calling them out on racism saying they didn't like him cause he was a outspoken black man.

But going in on white folks ain't gonna get you 30 mill on tv to talk.

I have said before these kats on tv are paid to say what the producers / company want them to say. Cause they have no real skill and they can get someone else to do their job for them.
Nah fam, Barkley was always on this.

He openly talked about being a black republican in the 90s.

He only talked about race when it affected him.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: GSR

Originalman

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
47,127
Reputation
12,150
Daps
204,799
My favorite MLK speak was his speech at the APA's Annual Convention in Washington, D.C. In 1967 where he challenged the nations psychologists to take white folks to task for their mental illness towards black people called. "
The Role of the Behavioral Scientist in the Civil Rights Movement"

He dropped BARS!! :wow:


It is always a very rich and rewarding experience when I can take a brief break from the day-to-day demands of our struggle for freedom and human dignity and discuss the issues involved in that struggle with concerned friends of good will all over the nation. It is particularly a great privilege to discuss these issues with members of the academic community, who are constantly writing about and dealing with the problems that we face and who have the tremendous responsibility of molding the minds of young men and women all over the country.

The Civil Rights Movement needs the help of social scientists
In the preface to their book, 'Applied Sociology' (1965), S. M. Miller and Alvin Gouldner state: 'It is the historic mission of the social sciences to enable mankind to take possession of society.' It follows that for Negroes who substantially are excluded from society this science is needed even more desperately than for any other group in the population.

For social scientists, the opportunity to serve in a life-giving purpose is a humanist challenge of rare distinction. Negroes too are eager for a rendezvous with truth and discovery. We are aware that social scientists, unlike some of their colleagues in the physical sciences, have been spared the grim feelings of guilt that attended the invention of nuclear weapons of destruction. Social scientists, in the main, are fortunate to be able to extirpate evil, not to invent it.

If the Negro needs social sciences for direction and for self-understanding, the white society is in even more urgent need. White America needs to understand that it is poisoned to its soul by racism and the understanding needs to be carefully documented and consequently more difficult to reject. The present crisis arises because although it is historically imperative that our society take the next step to equality, we find ourselves psychologically and socially imprisoned. All too many white Americans are horrified not with conditions of Negro life but with the product of these conditions-the Negro himself.

White America is seeking to keep the walls of segregation substantially intact while the evolution of society and the Negro's desperation is causing them to crumble. The white majority, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change, is resisting and producing chaos while complaining that if there were no chaos orderly change would come.

Negroes want the social scientist to address the white community and 'tell it like it is.' White America has an appalling lack of knowledge concerning the reality of Negro life. One reason some advances were made in the South during the past decade was the discovery by northern whites of the brutal facts of southern segregated life. It was the Negro who educated the nation by dramatizing the evils through nonviolent protest. The social scientist played little or no role in disclosing truth. The Negro action movement with raw courage did it virtually alone. When the majority of the country could not live with the extremes of brutality they witnessed, political remedies were enacted and customs were altered.

These partial advances were, however, limited principally to the South and progress did not automatically spread throughout the nation. There was also little depth to the changes. White America stopped murder, but that is not the same thing as ordaining brotherhood; nor is the ending of lynch rule the same thing as inaugurating justice.

After some years of Negro-white unity and partial success, white America shifted gears and went into reverse. Negroes, alive with hope and enthusiasm, ran into sharply stiffened white resistance at all levels and bitter tensions broke out in sporadic episodes of violence. New lines of hostility were drawn and the era of good feeling disappeared.

The decade of 1955 to 1965, with its constructive elements, misled us. Everyone, activists and social scientists, underestimated the amount of violence and rage Negroes were suppressing and the amount of bigotry the white majority was disguising.

Science should have been employed more fully to warn us that the Negro, after 350 years of handicaps, mired in an intricate network of contemporary barriers, could not be ushered into equality by tentative and superficial changes.

Mass nonviolent protests, a social invention of Negroes, were effective in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma in forcing national legislation which served to change Negro life sufficiently to curb explosions. But when changes were confined to the South alone, the North, in the absence of change, began to seethe.

The freedom movement did not adapt its tactics to the different and unique northern urban conditions. It failed to see that nonviolent marches in the South were forms of rebellion. When Negroes took over the streets and shops, southern society shook to its roots. Negroes could contain their rage when they found the means to force relatively radical changes in their environment.

In the North, on the other hand, street demonstrations were not even a mild expression of militancy. The turmoil of cities absorbs demonstrations as merely transitory drama which is ordinary in city life. Without a more effective tactic for upsetting the status quo, the power structure could maintain its intransigence and hostility. Into the vacuum of inaction, violence and riots flowed and a new period opened.

Urban riots.
Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

Glad you posted this brotha. I have heard this speech as well and it is an extremely powerful speech.

Not to change the subject up too much. But I saw a video awhile ago where Nichelle Nichols (who played Uhura) mentioned that if it wasn't for Dr. King she would have left star trek after the first season.

She wasn't really crazy about the show and wanted to leave (telling Roddenberry that she would leave after the 1st season) it because she enjoyed doing live plays. She went to a event and Dr. King was there. They began to talk and Dr. King mentioned that Star Trek was the only show he and his wife allowed the kids to stay up and watch. Only because Ms. Nichols was on the show.

She tells Dr. King she was gonna leave the show at seasons end. Dr. King asks her why and she explains why and also tells him she feels that the show isn't worth it and she could do more help in the movement.

Dr. King tells her nope we can't have you quit the show. We have enough folks marching and protesting. But we don't have enough people like you on tv in positive roles. Dr. King tells her that the image is so important because it shows a black person 100s of years in the future in a position of leadership. And that this is what our children need to see.

To make a long story short she was so moved by the conversation she had with Dr. King she goes back to the studio and tells Gene Roddenberry that after speaking to Dr. King she decided to stay on the show.
 

Originalman

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
47,127
Reputation
12,150
Daps
204,799
Nah fam, Barkley was always on this.

He openly talked about being a black republican in the 90s.

He only talked about race when it affected him.

Sorry homie this version of barkley is no where near the dude he was in his playing days. Barkley was the same dude that told the white media in phoenix after a game that he hated white folks and they made him sick.

Same dude who slapped microphones out of media members hands and said fukk you white folks yall can't tell me what to do.

But he was a athlete then paid to put the ball in the bucket and market shoes. Well that shyt has dried up and like many folks he has reinvented himself as the go to man on black conservative talking points and race.

This isn't new many entertainers have reinvented themselves as they got older and when one avenue dried up and had to find out another avenue to make money.
 

Big Boss

Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
175,197
Reputation
11,828
Daps
341,202
Reppin
NULL
Sorry homie this version of barkley is no where near the dude he was in his playing days. Barkley was the same dude that told the white media in phoenix after a game that he hated white folks and they made him sick.

Same dude who slapped microphones out of media members hands and said fukk you white folks yall can't tell me what to do.

But he was a athlete then paid to put the ball in the bucket and market shoes. Well that shyt has dried up and like many folks he has reinvented himself as the go to man on black conservative talking points and race.

This isn't new many entertainers have reinvented themselves as they got older and when one avenue dried up and had to find out another avenue to make money.



:ohhh:
 

Originalman

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
47,127
Reputation
12,150
Daps
204,799

Sure did man. I will never forget back in 93 the suns played the mavs on national TV on a NBC Sunday game. The refs do the usual hank panky shyt to keep the game close. Anyway the refs win and they do the after game post game report and they interview barkley.

He begins to go off talking about the refs and NBC were trying to keep the game close because it was on national tv. The reporter says do you care about a fine and on national tv barkley says fukk a fine and stern can kiss his ass. Then the reporter tries to egg barkley on and he tells the reporter to get out his damn face.

That is why I laugh and call barkley a hypocrite now when he goes off on folks like Boogie.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
62,697
Reputation
5,977
Daps
165,534
Sorry homie this version of barkley is no where near the dude he was in his playing days. Barkley was the same dude that told the white media in phoenix after a game that he hated white folks and they made him sick.

Same dude who slapped microphones out of media members hands and said fukk you white folks yall can't tell me what to do.

But he was a athlete then paid to put the ball in the bucket and market shoes. Well that shyt has dried up and like many folks he has reinvented himself as the go to man on black conservative talking points and race.

This isn't new many entertainers have reinvented themselves as they got older and when one avenue dried up and had to find out another avenue to make money.




When Barkley said he hated white people, he claimed he was joking. Even said it at the time.

At the same time he said that, he was a golf buddy with former VP Damn Quayle.


Barkley has always been this way. He may have been a hero of yours as a younger person but dude has always been a jackass.

I really hope you are not trying to make 80s and 90s Barkley as a militant black man. He never, ever was that.
 

Originalman

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
47,127
Reputation
12,150
Daps
204,799
When Barkley said he hated white people, he claimed he was joking. Even said it at the time.

At the same time he said that, he was a golf buddy with former VP Damn Quayle.


Barkley has always been this way. He may have been a hero of yours as a younger person but dude has always been a jackass.

I really hope you are not trying to make 80s and 90s Barkley as a militant black man. He never, ever was that.

See dude I normally don't mess with you cause you get out of pocket. Where did I say he was a hero of mine. I am telling you and giving you examples of barkley completely changing from where he was in his playing days. Everyone knew he was a republican but dude never talked out of pocket about black folks like he has the last 5 to 7 years. Even when he had the CNN show back in the early 2000s.

No one is making this dude out to be Ali or Joe Lewis.

Edit - of course barkley said he was playing. He always shot of at the mouth or did shyt then when folks called him out he would say he was playing. He also said after that incident that he couldn't be racist to white people because his wife is white. None of that shyt means anything when a mothafukka is going around talking like he Jack Johnson (saying he gonna do what the fukk he wants to do and white folks can't tell him shyt and don't be a role model).

To then after playing telling players they need to respect the league, act like role models and obey the rules.

Like I said Barkely flipped as many of these entertainers and ex athletes do when they get older and got to make money in other forms.
 
Last edited:

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
62,697
Reputation
5,977
Daps
165,534
See dude I normally don't mess with you cause you get out of pocket. Where did I say he was a hero of mine. I am telling you and giving you examples of barkley completely changing from where he was in his playing days. Everyone knew he was a republican but dude never talked out of pocket about black folks like he has the last 5 to 7 years. Even when he had the CNN show back in the early 2000s.

No one is making this dude out to be Ali or Joe Lewis.
You are attempting to paint Barkley as something he never was and I have to check you on it. He said he didn't like white people and was joking, yet you wanted to use that to show he was a militant. Just like you never said Barkley was your hero, I never said Barkley was Ali.

He was on this back in the 90s too. He just didn't have the platform to express his ignorant views like he has now since his job was to play in the NBA. Now his job is to talk so he talking.
 

Originalman

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
47,127
Reputation
12,150
Daps
204,799
You are attempting to paint Barkley as something he never was and I have to check you on it.

He was on this back in the 90s too. He just didn't have the platform to express his ignorant views like he has now since his job was to play in the NBA. Now his job is to talk so he talking.

Dude you just a got damn clown and do this bull shyt in every thread whether here or in the film room. You just a confrontational ass clown period. Like I said that is why a lot of kats don't fukk with you.
 
Top