Naked man arrested for causing 'an alarm'

[Bob S.]

lurk: "As far as "the law of the land" - segregation was legal in some places, but the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law."

Segregation was legal despite the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in 1896 decided that the Equal Protection Clause allowed for laws that separated the races. This, ironically, was decided by a man, Homer Plessy, who was basically white with 1/8 black heritage, which classified him by law to be black. It wasn't until 1954 that segregation became illegal based on Brown vs Board of Education. It took a while to really apply the 14th Amendment to racial equality.

Even after the Brown case, segregation existed. It took civil disobedience and overreactions by local governments to bring the public around.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Getting off-topic here.

On the first part of your post, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If you think "in your face" nudity will work better than other types - then go for it.
The topic of "organized nudism" came up in the Channel 4 (UK) feature "My Daughter the Teenage Nudist". I don't know if you've seen it -- there's some truth in what you say about the younger set not being joiners -- and, AANR has done a not-so-great job of marketing itself to that younger set. But good luck with "in your face, pants off on Main Street" approach. I frankly don't think it will work.

As far as "the law of the land" - segregation was legal in some places, but the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law. It took enabling legislation to force the southern states to go along with it -- to be sure. But Dr. King fully understood the power of the national media -- and in most parts of the country, people were sympathetic to his cause. In New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., people were on Dr. King's side -- the rest of the country should treat all people as we do.... the majority of Americans - if not necessarily the majority of white southerners at the time -- were on his side.





MLK also had many supporters as well as others who had differences of opinions with MLK but worked in parallel in their own way to achive the same ultimate goal. MLK's inspiration was Ghandi who also forced change upon a system that refused to change unless forced to do so.

Considering your second part, these are some of the specific reasons and facts as to why MLK succeeded.

Why Did Mlk Succeed in Gaining Improved Civil Rights for Black Citizens in the Usa in the 1950s and 1960s?

Why did MLK succeed in gaining improved civil rights for black citizens in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s?

P1: His leadership skills.

What? : MLK had great leadership skills and was able to coordinate people well. EG. Montgomery bus boycott and his work in churches and MIA. His setting up of SCLC and his coordinating of different groups, eg for March on Washington.

Importance: He gave a clear format to the movement, which made it easier for people to get involved eg his coordinating Greensboro sit ins with the SCLC 1960. It also made it easier for govt. to support him, eg March on Washington 1963, which solidified the support for Cr legislation. He was also able to control how things panned out, eg Birmingham campaign using his knowledge of “Bull” Connor

P2: Tactics

What? : He was non-violent. He used media to his advantage, he mobilised the masses, working within the American system, speeches.

Importance: His non-militant views mean that govt. could support him , he had strong links with Kennedy and this brought him advantages eg being removed from Atlanta jail by attorney general Robert kennedy. It is clear how much govt. support helped , as when the relationship with Johnson broke down after MLK criticised the Vietnam war he faced trouble in organising and following through on his northern campaigns. Working withing the system made sure that whites were not alienated and gave people little ammunition against the movement, for example his agreeing with Kennedy to call of 2nd Montgomery march at the bridge. He used the media to his advantage, eg using Bull Connor’s violence during Birmingham campaign as during freedom rides this had attracted a lot of attention . During Birmingham campaigns Kennedy claimed to be “sickened” by images of police brutality, leading to JFK announcing bill that would end segregation was and for all. (By 1955 ½ of all homes had a television) He was a great orator, and to this day his “I have a dream speech” performed at the...

Read More: http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Why-D...Gaining/968856


People were not automatically supportive of MLK and his cause. The issues that MLK faced were building for many years. There were many civil rights attempts during the 40's and 50's that came to a boil in the '60's. MLK used the teachings of Ghandi to understand how to bring down a system from within. Most importantly, MLK won finally won the support of a President and Attorney General who did not really care about civil rights until they realized the political importance of supporting a movement that the Republicans clearly had no intention of supporting. Had a Republican President been in office that the time, it is more that likely that MLK would have been thrown in jail and kept there.

It was the actions of the federal government at the time that did more to advance civil right than any claimed 'massive support from the American People". Most (white) Americans were apathetic at best.


Fast forward to today. What has changed since the days of MLK:

What We Did Not Overcome: Obama won a majority of votes. He did not wint a majority of white votes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._overcome.html

[usuallylurk]

Considering your second part, these are some of the specific reasons and facts as to why MLK succeeded.

Why Did Mlk Succeed in Gaining Improved Civil Rights for Black Citizens in the Usa in the 1950s and 1960s?

Snipped for brevity.

I questioned whether you authored this, and found that it is NOT "fact", but a college essay that's readily available from a "term paper service" board.

But one thing I can tell you - while the college kid who wrote this essay may have, in fact, lived through the early sixties, if he/she didn't -- the author of this paper did mess up on one thing.

The majority of white Americans were not apathetic towards civil rights issues in the early 1960s. The fifties? Maybe. But I was around when Dr. King's movement was happening. And I can tell you that in my corner of the country - people weren't apathetic.

Can you cite who wrote this essay?


It's posted at Oppapers.com, with the same spelling oddities, grammatical errors, and missed capitalized words....

[David77]

I jokingly say that If anyone was indeed badly alarmed, post-tramatic stress syndrome therapy is plausible.

[Sanslines]

Snipped for brevity.

I questioned whether you authored this, and found that it is NOT "fact", but a college essay that's readily available from a "term paper service" board.

But one thing I can tell you - while the college kid who wrote this essay may have, in fact, lived through the early sixties, if he/she didn't -- the author of this paper did mess up on one thing.

The majority of white Americans were not apathetic towards civil rights issues in the early 1960s. The fifties? Maybe. But I was around when Dr. King's movement was happening. And I can tell you that in my corner of the country - people weren't apathetic.

Can you cite who wrote this essay?


It's posted at Oppapers.com, with the same spelling oddities, grammatical errors, and missed capitalized words....

I posted the link for my source. Here it is again: Read More: http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Why-D...Gaining/968856 You seem to know this with your stament that "It's posted at Oppapers.com".

Does it matter that this might be a college essay, a pastor's essay, or an essay from anyone as long as the article is factually accurate. I would not so casually dismiss what college students write as being inaccurate.

You seem to be dismissing the source of information with only your opinions. You also seem to be discrediting the source instead of discrediting the facts stated within the article. Is this because you can not dismiss the statements with anything but your opinions? As you know, anyone can come along and say that anything is right or wrong but such statements do not say much. I went into some detail as to why white people were not massive supporters of civil rights. You just opinionate that white people were such supporters in the 1960's. Sorry, but the facts say otherwise.

I am certain that you can tell me many things about your corner of the world because you are much older than I am and perhaps have first hand experience. However, local and / or regional observations may or may not be reflective of the entire nation and should never be extrapolated and automatically assumed as such.

At times, there is a huge difference between opinion and fact. Some believe that their opinions are indeed fact and will accept nothing to the contrary. Others pursue fact in spite of their opinions.

Sorry, but it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree again.

[usuallylurk]

I'm just sayin', cutting and pasting someone else's anonymous postings -- just isn't raising the level of debate.

Good luck with the "In Your Face" campaign. But don't expect AANR, or the NAC, to give you defense funds.

[Sanslines]

I'm just sayin', cutting and pasting someone else's anonymous postings -- just isn't raising the level of debate.

Good luck with the "In Your Face" campaign. But don't expect AANR, or the NAC, to give you defense funds.

I agree , and that's why I posted the link to my source. However, posting unsubstantiated opinions does little to raise the level of debate for certain.

If history is any guide, I would not expect AANR to offer any defense funds.

[usuallylurk]

Does it matter that this might be a college essay, a pastor's essay, or an essay from anyone as long as the article is factually accurate. I would not so casually dismiss what college students write as being inaccurate.

You seem to be dismissing the source of information with only your opinions. You also seem to be discrediting the source instead of discrediting the facts stated within the article. Is this because you can not dismiss the statements with anything but your opinions?

An essay is an OPINION. Just so you know that a ch-, umm, unsigned "term paper research site" college essay is that.


And yes, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but college term paper services aren't where I'd go to raise a discussion level. Try it in an academic environment, see where it lands you.

When I taught at the college level, there was no "Google". If there had been, most certainly a few more people would have received "Fs", and "If you have anything to ***** about, go see the dean."

And I would not routinely dismiss a nudist - with 30 plus years of real world, social nudist background -- who gives his or her opinions based on actual observations.

And who has seen legal actions, NAC, legislatures in action, successful and failed attempts to sell nudism to a community and so forth. AANR hasn't done the best job, especially in retaining members, and in outreach toward young adults. And has sat through AANR general assembly meetings, and met with some AANR big shots to make suggestions.

But I also - based on MY OBSERVATIONS - don't feel that a guy walking down the street in the middle of the day with his pants off, is doing nudism any favors, nor will he lead others to join him.

Oh I *WAS* around in the 1960s -- and actually attended Civil Rights demonstrations. Can you say the same?

[David77]

In my opinion, persons do not have a right to be protected from "being alarmed". For example, coming upon a group of persons in the river swimming nude.

In some situations, alarm is beneficial - such as in a close call while driving, or some other danger of loss of life or limb or property. Having alarm in these situations would sharpen the mind for proper action.

But seeing simple nudity and without a sense of danger, is certainly no justification to call the police, with the reason that they were "alarmed".

[Sanslines]

An essay is an OPINION. Just so you know that a ch-, umm, unsigned "term paper research site" college essay is that.


And yes, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but college term paper services aren't where I'd go to raise a discussion level. Try it in an academic environment, see where it lands you.

When I taught at the college level, there was no "Google". If there had been, most certainly a few more people would have received "Fs", and "If you have anything to ***** about, go see the dean."

And I would not routinely dismiss a nudist - with 30 plus years of real world, social nudist background -- who gives his or her opinions based on actual observations.

And who has seen legal actions, NAC, legislatures in action, successful and failed attempts to sell nudism to a community and so forth. AANR hasn't done the best job, especially in retaining members, and in outreach toward young adults. And has sat through AANR general assembly meetings, and met with some AANR big shots to make suggestions.

But I also - based on MY OBSERVATIONS - don't feel that a guy walking down the street in the middle of the day with his pants off, is doing nudism any favors, nor will he lead others to join him.

Oh I *WAS* around in the 1960s -- and actually attended Civil Rights demonstrations. Can you say the same?

It is obvious that you an prefer to attack the source of information then to discuss the content of the source. I disagree with your obvious condescending attitude towards college students as if a mere college paper can not contain anything of fact or value.

Look, you have had many opportunities to discuss and / or debate the content of the article. It is obvious that you can not or are not willing to do so. If you really taught anything at a college level, then you should have learned to not be so condescending towards students. You certainly would have learned to lead by example and you would be posting what you consider to be superior sources of information. Yet, you post no source - absolutly none. Why is that? Why the obvious arrogance towards young people? Don't you care that you turn young people off and away from nudism or anything else that you are promoting?

You claim to have all of this nudist experience and yet your statement and attutude towards young people are reflective of some of the reasons why young people are being turned off from nudism. The attitude of "Father or Grandfather Knows Best" no longer works for young people. They will not be told what is right or wrong for them. They will make their own decisions and find their own way in life just as you did many, many years ago. You have your opinions and they have theirs. Theirs is of value too. You have obviously forgotten what it means to be a young person. Perhaps too many years have passed.................

You may have been around in the '60's and you may (or may not) have participated in a few Civil Rights marches but this does not make you an expert on the subject. As you must certainly know, there were reasons for the 'struggle'. The struggle would not have occurred has there been this mass awakening to racism on the part of white people and their self accepted repentance. Quite the contrary, most white people lived in a state of denail, and many would never accept any personal criticism or admit that their were racists. Yet they continued to live their self imposed segregated lifestyles in their lilly white neighborhoods while the inner cities burned.

I really see no point in continuining this pissing contest. You obviously refuse to discuss the topic and you believe that your opinions are a kind of gospel that can not be questioned. Any source that does not meet your standards is obviously too beneath you for discussion - regardless of content or accuracy (which you have so far refused to even discuss). So sad. Good luck to you but just be aware that you are indeed part of the problem as to why young people are turned off by old school organized nudism. I certainly see 'it' and I am certain that many others see 'it'. 'It' no longer works in this new century.

It's been a real 'blast' but time for me to get back to the 'young crowd'. Places to go, people to see, things to do...........young people rock!


Perhaps there really is truth to the saying "Trust No One Over 30".