This generation's leaders

[CrimsonNBlue]

To get this thread going, he's not MLK as stated in the OP, not close. But, as I stated in another thread, there's a very good chance that history will treat Kaepernick well.

I agree that Kaepernick will be on the right side of history.

That he's one of the best examples of a current leader is...telling.

Gates will go down as a great humanitarian.

As far as the millennial generation, Zuck had the opportunity, but he was in no way cut out for it.

[DCHawk1]

To get this thread going, he's not MLK as stated in the OP, not close. But, as I stated in another thread, there's a very good chance that history will treat Kaepernick well.

I don't know.

He has trouble staying out of his own way.

Well I think that defines a lot of our past leaders, especially the athletes.

Kaep will have the luxury of being on the other side of a bigger villain: the NFL.

There's no question about the NFL.

And I guess it depends on his longevity. Jim Brown outlived the controversy surrounding his activism, and Kaep could, in theory, do so as well.

[Shirley]

I don't know.

He has trouble staying out of his own way.

Well I think that defines a lot of our past leaders, especially the athletes.

Kaep will have the luxury of being on the other side of a bigger villain: the NFL.

There's no question about the NFL.

And I guess it depends on his longevity. Jim Brown outlived the controversy surrounding his activism, and Kaep could, in theory, do so as well.

Speaking of "telling", that what Kaep did was so "controversial", certainly is.

Not to mention the lift his legacy will get when it's contrasted with what will become known as the most corrupt administration in our nation's history, Donald, 'the Birther', Trump.

[PhDhawk]

To get this thread going, he's not MLK as stated in the OP, not close. But, as I stated in another thread, there's a very good chance that history will treat Kaepernick well.

I agree that Kaepernick will be on the right side of history.

That he's one of the best examples of a current leader is...telling.

Gates will go down as a great humanitarian.

As far as the millennial generation, Zuck had the opportunity, but he was in no way cut out for it.

Yes, but Gates doesn't seem like a great leader.

More Andrew Carnegie than MLK.

[ousdahl]

Zuck LOL

I mean yeah he had the opportunity, but "in no way cut out for it" is such an understatement.

[DCHawk1]

Even after having achieved the highest office in the land, Obama seems best suited in a lot of ways.

but man, does he have his detractors.

what were MLK's detractors like?

I can only imagine they were worse. Especially worse at a motel in Memphis.

I've posted it somewhere -- in one of the FBI threads.

The note from the FBI telling King to kill himself is pretty...well...


Obama's problem -- and it is HIS problem -- is that he's too invested in politics (and partisan politics, as well). Great leaders transcend politics, which is a cheap imitation of life. War-time Churchill, for example, versus non-War-time Churchill. One was an incomparable, non-partisan leader, and the other was an insufferable Tory prick.

[ousdahl]

could we cautiously optimistically say maybe (post-presidential) Obama could transcend partisan politics?

Even if he tried, would his detractors let him do it?

[Deleted User 89]

what were MLK's detractors like?

i know that was a bit rhetorical, and i could be wrong, but i bet they were kinda like the guy that went to help the cops deal with protesters in SLC...and thought it a good idea to brandish a hunting bow

[PhDhawk]

could we cautiously optimistically say maybe (post-presidential) Obama could transcend partisan politics?

Even if he tried, would his detractors let him do it?

I think he COULD. In the same way that I'd argue Jimmy Carter has.

With the potential to be even more influential, for obvious reasons.

[ousdahl]

whoa, a hunting bow?

Frank, you're just confusing your own life with the storyline to Rambo again.

[DCHawk1]

Speaking of "telling", that what Kaep did was so "controversial", certainly is.

Not to mention the lift his legacy will get when it's contrasted with what will become known as the most corrupt administration in our nation's history, Donald, 'the Birther', Trump.

That's what I mean about him not being able to get out of his own way.

If he had kept the protest to the kneeling, he'd already be lionized.

But then came the socks.

And the Betsy Ross comments.

And the support for Castro.


None of that is necessarily disqualifying, but it shows a lack of focus and mission-creep.

If he really wanted to make an impact, he'd avoid the other shit that detracts from the core message.

[ousdahl]

could we cautiously optimistically say maybe (post-presidential) Obama could transcend partisan politics?

Even if he tried, would his detractors let him do it?

I think he COULD. In the same way that I'd argue Jimmy Carter has.

With the potential to be even more influential, for obvious reasons.

how has Jimmy Carter? Genuinely asking.

[DCHawk1]

could we cautiously optimistically say maybe (post-presidential) Obama could transcend partisan politics?

Even if he tried, would his detractors let him do it?

IMO, no on both questions.

Politicians believe in politics as the means to accomplish goals.

[Deleted User 310]

I mean, obvious one is Barack Obama.

I'm not disputing your statement, or agreeing with it, at the moment...but what has he done to deserve to be mentioned with the likes of MLK?

Obviously being elected president is a huge accomplishment. But i think some POC have expressed that he didnt fulfill many of their hopes for actually creating real change for black people/black communities in our country.

[Deleted User 310]

here's a thought:

does an assumed leader of the black lives matter movement have to be black?

Yes.

White people can and should participate, absolutely. But there is such a lack of trust that it almost certainly needs to be (and is) lead by POC.

[ousdahl]

yeah, that's tricky. (ETA in response to DC and "politicians believe in politics")

the bigger, and tougher question, I suppose could be, "how does the movement get critical mass beyond partisan politics?"

how will partisan politics frame the argument against the movement? In the 60s it was "state's rights," or something? What now?

[CrimsonNBlue]

Obviously being elected president is a huge accomplishment. But i think some POC have expressed that he didnt fulfill many of their hopes for actually creating real change for black people/black communities in our country.

Could be more telling of the chair than the man.

[ousdahl]

while it certainly helps to have POC leading a movement for POC rights, I also think it's feasible, even important, for leaders to emerge regardless of race.

[pdub]

Poo poo this all you want because I know it will come, I won't bother responding:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th ... nistration

And by leaders, it's not just what the individual did for race relations ( obviously a big factor ), it's how they presented and LED themselves when in power/when being heard.

[Shirley]

Speaking of "telling", that what Kaep did was so "controversial", certainly is.

Not to mention the lift his legacy will get when it's contrasted with what will become known as the most corrupt administration in our nation's history, Donald, 'the Birther', Trump.

That's what I mean about him not being able to get out of his own way.

If he had kept the protest to the kneeling, he'd already be lionized.

But then came the socks.

And the Betsy Ross comments.

And the support for Castro.


None of that is necessarily disqualifying, but it shows a lack of focus and mission-creep.

If he really wanted to make an impact, he'd avoid the other shit that detracts from the core message.

^^^

I saw this coming and disagreed when they decided to let Kaep quiz out of Saul Alinsky 101 and not make him take the entire course at the University of Nevada, Reno. And now, the pigeons have come home to roost.