Received Another Lovely E-Mail

This one was a forward from a relative of mine dealing with Martin Luther King Day. Now, is it just me, or was MLK Day celebrated over a month ago? Third week in January, I believe? Why did he feel it necessary to send it now? Was he embarrassed that I had proven his other e-mail to be false? So, he had to scrap through anything he could in attempt to redeem himself?

In this e-mail, it spoke of King's: 1) Supposed affairs, 2) Supposed links to communism, and 3) Alleged plagiarism in speeches and papers of his. The e-mail then complained about a holiday celebrating, well, the "devil," pretty much. It said for everyone to make sure that they keep all these "facts" in mind on MLK Day. Again, it being March, I think this individual was embarrassed by my showing him up on his bogus e-mail, so he had to send something out for redemption. It also spoke about how we live in a world of reverse discrimination, whites are now the minority, and whites don't have as many rights or opportunities as blacks.

It read like an e-mail a KKK member might send to some potential prospects, in hopes of burning crosses on MLK Day. It made for a lovely read, I must say.

You know, I have a book coming out shortly and a poem in there is entitled "Dr. King." I wrote it on Martin Luther King Day four years ago, not long after the U.S. declared a war on terror. I'm sure this family member will love that poem. He'll probably condemn me and declare me the devil's advocate.

As I did with his other e-mail, I'm sending this individual some information to rebut his claims. While it can't be for certain what happened in regards to King's extramarital affairs, there have been differing stories on the matter. The FBI claimed they had evidence regarding these affairs, even with prostitutes, and even sent King a suicide note, threatening to expose these events if he didn't kill himself. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was very much against the black movement and kept a particularly close eye on King, wanting to ruin his reputation. Hoover and the FBI even resorted to bugging King's residence and hotel rooms. Family members of King claimed that the FBI set up attractive women in his rooms to set him up as having extramarital affairs. So, it cannot be certain what the true story was, but Hoover definitely wanted to dispose of King, and was going to do anything in his power to do so.

The plagiarism claims seem to be fairly valid, but there are also different takes on this matter. While, it seems that King did most certainly use others' words in speeches and papers of his, it's also said that this was quite common for African American pastors and they didn't consider it plagiarism. They felt it was all being used for a common cause and for a higher purpose, so while looking at it in black and white terms, we may say, yes, he plagiarized; we also have to look at the time in which it took place, his ethnic background, and his profession.

When it comes to links to communism, this was very common back in those days. Former Senator Joe McCarthy called it the "Red Scare." But, decades after that incident, many question whether it was a "Red Scare" or if he was just a "Red Menace." Anyone who so questioned the government, especially the war, was labeled a "dangerous liberal" and therefore, a "communist." There was no differentiating between liberals and communists for McCarthy at that time. So King, leading his movement for peace and equality, would've definitely been considered liberal and "communist" by Hoover, McCarthy, and the like. But, does that mean he was in fact a communist? No.

So, there are many different angles and perspectives one can take when analyzing these stories on Martin Luther King. When it comes down to it and all the angles are presented, one will most likely believe what they want to believe. One who despised King and what he stood for, will probably believe that he was a bad man and all these stories are true. Others, who applaud what he stood for, will probably go the direct opposite route. Yet, others, will stand somewhere in between the two extremes.

But, the most ignorant comments in the entire e-mail have to deal with reverse discrimination, whites being the minority, and not having as many rights or opportunities as blacks. I did some research on this and here are some numbers I pulled up:

Whites still make up over 79% of the U.S. population. Blacks only make up 11% and Hispanics constitute close to 9%. Whites are the minority? If minority means the majority, then I guess that's accurate. But, from what I've come to know, it's never meant that.

How about yearly income? The median for whites is almost $45,000 and the mean average is close to $60,000. For blacks, that's a different story, where the median income is slightly over $29,000 and the mean income is just below $40,000. Hispanics rake in a median income of almost $34,000 and a mean average of just over $44,000. 19.7% of whites make under $20,000 a year and 7.9% make less than $10,000 yearly. For blacks, that number increases to 35.7% that makes less than $20,000 annually and an astounding 19.1% make less than $10,000 a year. 28.2% of Hispanics make less than $20,000 annually and 9.5% make under $10,000 a year. Going the other way, 44.6% of whites make at least $50,000 a year. In comparison, only 27.4% of blacks and 30.9% of Hispanics make at least $50,000 per year.

Only 8.1% of whites live in poverty, while 24.9% and 22.6% of Hispanics live in poverty. The poverty rate for blacks is three times that of whites and the Hispanic poverty rate is almost three times that of whites. How can anyone in their right mind think that whites are the minority, that we suffer from reverse discrimination, and that we don't receive the same rights and opportunities as the true minorities? If someone wants to believe the stories regarding King, that's one thing. But, to state that a group of people who comprise nearly 80% of a population as a minority? To say that a group of people who have one-third the poverty rate that these other groups have don't have equal rights or opportunities as them? To say that a group of people who averages to make approximately $20,000 and $16,000 more per household than these other two groups of people suffer from reverse discrimination? I've heard and read some ignorant statements, but this one might be hard to top.

Links:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html
http://www.cdc.gov/omh/Populations/populations.htm
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/c2kbr-36.pdf