Hi Blake, I'm missing the flaw. Angel is not writing to people in 1960, but to today's. More specifically, I find that he's attacking the idea that a "Hero" (let alone the average human being) must be without flaws in order to remain worthy. MLK, on MLK day, is the specific example used to drive this point home. Can you elaborate on the flaw which you find to be glaring and unaddressed?
Hi Blake, I'm missing the flaw. Angel is not writing to people in 1960, but to today's. More specifically, I find that he's attacking the idea that a "Hero" (let alone the average human being) must be without flaws in order to remain worthy. MLK, on MLK day, is the specific example used to drive this point home. Can you elaborate on the flaw which you find to be glaring and unaddressed?
Thanks for the feedback, Blake. And Brad, I think you've addressed Blake's point well.
I am indeed addressing a modern audience, but even in 1960, I would be making the same points. MLK's movement was right and good not because he was perfect, but because what he was saying and advocating for was right and good on its own merits. One need only point to the Founding Fathers and their obvious, sometimes horrifying flaws to make a concordant point and show just how destructive and limiting this line of argumentation would be for anyone—"White America" included.
Good is good and right is right, and the imperfection of the messenger has no bearing on the message itself.
Hi Blake, I'm missing the flaw. Angel is not writing to people in 1960, but to today's. More specifically, I find that he's attacking the idea that a "Hero" (let alone the average human being) must be without flaws in order to remain worthy. MLK, on MLK day, is the specific example used to drive this point home. Can you elaborate on the flaw which you find to be glaring and unaddressed?
Thanks for the feedback, Blake. And Brad, I think you've addressed Blake's point well.
I am indeed addressing a modern audience, but even in 1960, I would be making the same points. MLK's movement was right and good not because he was perfect, but because what he was saying and advocating for was right and good on its own merits. One need only point to the Founding Fathers and their obvious, sometimes horrifying flaws to make a concordant point and show just how destructive and limiting this line of argumentation would be for anyone—"White America" included.
Good is good and right is right, and the imperfection of the messenger has no bearing on the message itself.
Well said.