Martin Luther King? Every historical change needs leaders and catalysts. The moment may be right; people may long for change without knowing just what they want. Someone has to put it into words. Someone has to speak for the multitudes without voice. Someone has to do the thinking to make the incoherent yearnings of the people specific, concrete, and actionable. Someone has to draft the battle plans. Someone has to persuade people that change is actually possible. None of that happens automatically. That's what people like King add to history. They're indispensable. You might look at the histories of the US and Britain and compare how they ended slavery. The US had Daniel Webster (and Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun) and Lincoln; Britain had William Pitt and his Whigs. The moral impulse may have been the same, but the different results are attributable to the personalities involved. Praising King takes nothing from Wilkins and Abernathy. King was the more effective leader, and of course he was murdered, which adds inestimably to one's posthumous reputation.

Daniel Webster? Leader of the northern liberals who opposed the spread of slavery. Would the liberals have been as effective without him? No. He did much else to foster the economic development of America, contributing greatly to agricultural and manufacturing changes that are now assumed in our way of life - everything looks easy after it's done.

Benjamin Franklin? A great scientist, who made fundamental discoveries about electricity, paving the way for Faraday and Maxwell in the 19th century. Started the first free public libraries and schools in America. The diplomat who won financial and military aid from France - key to the US surviving its Revolution. One of the intellectual progenitors of the Revolution, and a decisive voice in the early debates that shaped the American culture and polity. Invented the rocking chair!

Ronald Reagan? If you remembered Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate, and the loathsome Jimmy Carter, you wouldn't need to ask. After 20 years of anguished unraveling, Reagan healed America. He made us proud again. (Of course, the left disdained America since the 1930s, and still does, but that's another story.) Also, Reagan popularized the idea that the American collective - the people combining in the marketplace, the workplace, and in all the non-governmental institutions of society - had the strength and creativity to solve most problems, and that they could usually do a better job than the government. You don't understand how new this was. Since the 1930s, worship of the state and its "strongmen" leaders and its interventions in society, had been the received wisdom. The idea that the mass of ordinary people, acting together, could displace the old ruling class was shockingly radical. This idea seems commonplace now, but Reagan was the intellectual - yes, that's right, intellectual - who propelled the democratic idea to the forefront. Even now, the people who think they know better than their neighbors have difficulty accepting it.

Barak Obama? Not even his oratory. It's because he's black. People feel that he'd heal the race cancer. He has a superior resume; he's young and handsome. He's a marketable product. No one has yet said that he's great or has accomplished great things - only that he's presentable.

"Myths of greatness?" They are valid, because these people had the effect they did in the times in which they lived. It's pointless to complain that people centuries ago didn't address the concerns or share the values of 2007. You don't think about the issues that sparked the conflagrations of the 18th century, and I don't hold it against you. Underlying your complaint, I think, is the common feeling that only the present is truly important, while the past is irrelevant, if not deplorable. Not so. History is a logical continuum. We got where we are by passing, inevitably, through the times that preceeded ours. Without

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:21 pm George Washington and Thomas Jefferson,

there's no Hillary Clinton. If you don't see the connection, it's because you haven't read deeply in history. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves? It was legal and respectable back then, just as it's illegal and shameful now. They were creatures of their time, just like you. You could hardly say other than you do, living now, but that only means you conform. By the way, slavery ended - everywhere, not just in the US - when technical innovation made the unskilled manual labor of slaves inefficient.

Civil Rights and Feminism? Well, that's what some feminist historians are saying. It's OK to say that, but it's just a reflection of their ideological commitments.

I do agree with you that when younger WASP Americans find out that Bill Clinton

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:21 pm had dozens or hundreds of sexual encounters with women other than his wife, they may get the idea that promiscuity is all right.

That attitude has become a principal cause of illegitimacy among WASPs, which now exceeds 29% (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf ). Odd that you think King has so little clout, yet he might be a model for the behavior of young black people.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:55 am I do agree with you that when younger WASP Americans find out that Bill Clinton

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:21 pm had dozens or hundreds of sexual encounters with women other than his wife, they

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:55 am may get the idea that promiscuity is all right.

That attitude has become a principal cause of illegitimacy among WASPs, which now exceeds 29% (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf ). Odd that you think King has so little clout, yet h

e might be a model for the behavior of young black people.

No child is illegitimate - only the parents.

Illegitimacy only gains credibility as a concept if one makes the presumption of the validity of marriage or other such requirement as requisite to birth. I do not.

Never married (Thank the Gods), 3 gorgeous sons, well raised by mother and step-father, with lots of support every step of the way. Not in the least were they or are they illegitimate.

Just a little note regarding history...

Castro started out allied with the U.S.

During the Eisenhower administration he was alienated and basically driven into becoming an ally of the Soviet Union. HIs revolution was supported by the USSR. America should have supported him as a "Freedom Fighter".

SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/244974.stm)

The Baptista government of Cuba was allied with the Mafia and the Casinos in Havanna and the buisnesses were dominated by big money foreign companies, mostly U.S. companies.

I shudder to say this, but the common people of Cuba were being exploited. Fidel could not get the support form America, and he came to hate the "system" as it existed in the U.S.

I will not mention the CIA-Mafia connection, but we know about it, and we have all heard about it.

SOURCE (http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/us_ ... _in_c.html)

In Cuba, Fidel Castro eventually became that which he had started out hating, but not before giving control of Cuba back to the Cubans...and then turing around and supressing freedom as a dictator, and silencing dissention by execution, prison and deportation...but mostly by execution.

SOURCE (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0599a.asp)

Just as in so many other countries of the world, the USA had a HUGE role in making Cuba what it is today, by allowing big money, the Mafia and the agencies of the U.S. government to operate without guidance or supervision. The man is your basic survivor, but he is heartless, even today.

Yes it is time to BEFRIEND cuba and the COUNTRIES south of the border, whoever nasty slogans they use to scare of make us ANGRY, since our common GOOD is all that matters. I like to know how long does it take to do this, open all FRIEND channels with those "HOSTILE" countries and do the GOOD THINGS we still know how to do ?? N3RF

Kristoff, my apologies. You're right, of course. I was using "illegitimate" in the common idiom. My obvious intention was to parody what Beau Geste had said about King inspiring unwed parenting among black people.

The Cuban embargo has lasted over 40 years now, with none of the intended effect. I think the only reason is that neither party wants whatever political heat might be caused by a change. It's always easier for politicians to accede to the status quo than to explain the reasons for a change.

Now, I think the agenda is to wait for Fidel to die. There's too much bad blood between Fidel and the US. No one wants to give him the satisfaction, and the propaganda victory, of seeing the US come to him after all this time. It's widely thought that after Fidel, Cuba will move rapidly toward open markets. Brother Raul is believed to be sympathetic to a program of economic growth and transformation. The worst thing for Cuba would be Fidel lingering for another ten years. An entire generation of Cubans would have to be sacrificed to his pride.

By the way, as fruitless and stupid as the US embargo is, Fidel's dogged hostility to the US is at least an equal contributor to Cuba's isolation.

n3rf (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:08 am Yes it is time to BEFRIEND cuba and the COUNTRIES south of the border, whoever nasty slogans they use to scare of make us ANGRY, since our common GOOD is all that matters. I like to know how long does it take to do this, open all FRIEND channels with those "HOSTILE" countries and do the GOOD THINGS we still know how to do ?? N3RF

n3rf,

It is more a matter of GREED, and pride...

The U.S. is a wealthy country. The people who made it that way, intend for it to stay that way.

IT probably will, too.

Are we in the USA-its people and its government- capabale to BEFRIEND

for xample the Cuban Castro etc, or the IRANIAN whatshisname etc and the ARGENTINA leader - even though he or they make UNFRIENDLY noices and threatening moves etc. What does it take to go from "we will kill kille etc." to a "nice nice benice and we will be nicer than You etc" ??? If we are such a DEVELOPED and FRIENDLY country we should be able to SWEET TALK any of our "so called ENEMIS" and make them be nice also ?? Eye for an Eye methods and Kill Kill methods are outmoded and this LACK of new technology to make things and them NICE are tottally missing. When is my question will we develope the NEW approach to make thing more amiable for even our s called "ENEMIES" so they will come back nice ?? N3RF

I wonder, what has cuba, fidel, ad nausea, have to do with Bayard Rustin?

A-1, you've made me see the light - if we all work together, we can make America poor. What a better world that would be! It's all a question of morality. Suicide - good; self-interest - bad. Got it!

n3rf, sadly, the world isn't the same as kindergarten. It's not just a matter of telling people to "be nice." Among adults, there are real lasting differences. They have conflicting beliefs and conflicting interests. These aren't just misunderstandings or lack of communication. To the contrary, nations may understand one another all too well, and they have competing economic, political, and ideological objectives. Sometimes, it's possible to arrange compromises, in order to limit the costs of conflict. Sometimes, the costs of conflict are less than the costs of compromise, and then conflict escalates. We all wish for the best, but just hoping it will all go away won't accomplish anything. Where conflict exists, we can't avoid choosing sides, because one side or the other will prevail, and we'll have to live with the result. Ending military operations, e.g., in Iraq, does not end the conflict. Sorry. Closing her eyes and saying "I wish I was home" brought Dorothy back from Oz, but on this planet, the choice is between fighting and winning, or losing. If we don't want to fight, we have to pay the price of losing. It's an irresponsible dream of too many Americans that if they close their doors, the world will go away.