Is this person being a hypocrit?
2007-09-25 03:27:45 · 16 answers · asked by MJMGrand 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
There is no proof of either as far as I know. My roommates were arguing about this one of them was really quick to call MLK a womanizer but when the other one said Elvis was a bigot the other one and all her friends blew up at my other roommate. I dont know how the conversation began but it intrigued me that more of them got angry about Elvis being called a bigot then MLK being called a womanizer.
2007-09-25 03:40:00 · update #1
As far as I know there is good proof that both statements are accurate. Don't you just love the double standard, though....
2007-09-25 05:14:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know either of their personal lives that closely, but I wouldn't say either. Also, it wouldn't be hypocritical to say one and not the other. Why couldn't MLK have been a womanizer without Elvis being a bigot? I don't believe for a minute that Elvis was a bigot, from everything I've heard from the people that knew him, but I also have never heard of MLK being a womanizer. Regardless of all that, one idea doesn't necessitate the other...
2007-09-25 10:31:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, to be honest ...
MLK WAS a womaniser, and did some pretty bad things ... offset of course by the good things that he definitely did do.
I hadn't heard that Elvis was a bigot, but I've never really looked at him all that closely.
I guess the way I'd look at it is ... nobody is perfect. Not even the heroes that we idolise. For some people MLK was a hero (for many at that), and for other people, Elvis was a hero. We all at some point in our life hold certain people on pedestals in our mind, and we don't want to even look at the bad things they may have done because we are busy looking at the good things they've done - and we get hurt when other people criticise those heroes and try to pull them down from those pedestals in their mind.
Without knowing what this person actually said, I'd guess they hold Elvis to be a hero in their heads, and don't want to take him down.
2007-09-25 10:34:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are suggestions that MLK had an affair or two, but by no way could he be referred to as a womanizer (unless you are one of those female liberal extremist).
As far as Elvis goes, I dont think he was a bigot, but he would better fit the womanizer title.
2007-09-25 10:35:27 · answer #4 · answered by DWW in Niagara 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
society should expect more out of a civil rights leader than an entertainer. you can call elvis a bigot until you're blue in the face.
2007-09-25 10:34:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes this is taboo
i just think that people are more critical of anything that my people do
for instance, much was made of the fact that Dorothy Dandridge's singing in Carmen Jones was done by an opera singer (why not? Carmen was an Opera!)
but little was said about how much time she spent modelling her "lip synching" to her, even to the point of making sure the muscles in her throat matched
but anything we do wrong is headlines
oh well
2007-09-25 16:51:52 · answer #6 · answered by soulflower 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
odd. I would have assumed the other way around. It seems acceptable to society to criticize entertainers but not civil rights leaders.
I think they're all open to criticism to some extent. But ultimately, Elvis was paid by us to entertain us and MLK was asking us to follow him. Maybe we do have more right to examine whether MLK is worth following, though ultimately the message is more important than the messenger.
2007-09-25 10:29:47 · answer #7 · answered by MithrilHawk 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure hypocrite is the right word, unless he specifically stated it exactly the way you said, that its ok to say the first and not the second... since there is no difference unless one happens to be true and the other is false...
If based on whatever sources he has heard this from he merely happened to believe one and not the other, than no, that would not be hypocritical...
2007-09-25 10:33:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Elvis was a christian from a youngish age. Went off the rails a bit. Was like his mom, addicted to pills. He was smart but dumb in the same breath. Used to watch all his movies and listen to his records. He was a hillbilly and was a loner.
2007-09-25 10:32:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because they love suppressing MLK . For example, the teach in school everything he said about civil rights and how he made a difference. They don't tell you how he turned the civil rights movement into a class struggle that only benefits the rich while the poor went to Vietnam. Look it up, he got assassinated for a reason/
2007-09-25 10:30:51 · answer #10 · answered by tweakk 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋