Malcolm X thread.

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

AntonLaVey wrote:

  

Lemme put it this way...white people weren't any more scared of malcom as they were of MLK for attempting to effect social change. If I were white people I would be more terrified of MLK getting some white people on his side, because this is a "real" sign of times changing. Believe it or not, getting the majority support IS a huge help when trying to achieve social justice. People in here are acting like white people supporting MLK is such a terrible thing.

But yea, I've already said I respect both, I'm just not fond of Malcom's approach.   


Why don't you have any words for the people in here calling MLK an "Uncle Tom"? Yea that's what I thought, you just felt like arguing with me. There are many other people in here choosing a fav, but not as respectfully as I have.

Why don't you call them out as well?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

AntonLaVey wrote:

  

Lemme put it this way...white people weren't any more scared of malcom as they were of MLK for attempting to effect social change. If I were white people I would be more terrified of MLK getting some white people on his side, because this is a "real" sign of times changing. Believe it or not, getting the majority support IS a huge help when trying to achieve social justice. People in here are acting like white people supporting MLK is such a terrible thing.

But yea, I've already said I respect both, I'm just not fond of Malcom's approach.   


Why don't you have any words for the people in here calling MLK an "Uncle Tom"? Yea that's what I thought, you just felt like arguing with me. There are many other people in here choosing a fav, but not as respectfully as I have.

Why don't you call them out as well?

 

[airmaxpenny1]

I don't get why people attack Anton for no reason, he hasn't attacked anyone's opinion in this thread but his own.

MLK does in a way get far too much credit for the Civil Rights movement in a sense.  Thurgood Marshall, Bayard Rustin, Huey Newton, A. Phillip Randolph, all played roles arguably just as important in knocking down certain barriers of inequality.  It was a collaborative effort that took the effort of millions not the leadership of one.

And in terms of the Obama stuff, I agree to a point.  A president is very limited in what he can do.  While I don't actually believe in an Illuminati essentially that is what we are under.  Big multi national corporations control the world because they are not confined by laws or national boundaries.  For small third-world countries, their soverignty is dependant on the influx of money, despite how fractional or minute it is, that they companies provide.

Although it's a well known book, if you haven't read it Confession of an Economic Hit Man is an eye opening read.  That's why I try to push people away from these race arguments.  It's a way to keep the proletariat divided itself.  The rush for natural resources of this planet is happening behind our backs.  The world's entire fresh water supply is being privatized and used in such a way that the amount of water available for human consumption will collapse in approximately 50 years.  !%$% is real out here.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

I don't get why people attack Anton for no reason, he hasn't attacked anyone's opinion in this thread but his own.

MLK does in a way get far too much credit for the Civil Rights movement in a sense.  Thurgood Marshall, Bayard Rustin, Huey Newton, A. Phillip Randolph, all played roles arguably just as important in knocking down certain barriers of inequality.  It was a collaborative effort that took the effort of millions not the leadership of one.

And in terms of the Obama stuff, I agree to a point.  A president is very limited in what he can do.  While I don't actually believe in an Illuminati essentially that is what we are under.  Big multi national corporations control the world because they are not confined by laws or national boundaries.  For small third-world countries, their soverignty is dependant on the influx of money, despite how fractional or minute it is, that they companies provide.

Although it's a well known book, if you haven't read it Confession of an Economic Hit Man is an eye opening read.  That's why I try to push people away from these race arguments.  It's a way to keep the proletariat divided itself.  The rush for natural resources of this planet is happening behind our backs.  The world's entire fresh water supply is being privatized and used in such a way that the amount of water available for human consumption will collapse in approximately 50 years.  !%$% is real out here.

 

[bijald0331]

I just can't put Malcolm on the same pedestal as Martin and Thurgood when Malcolm admits his 12 years in NOI was a mistake. Again, all of that I see with Malcolm is bombastic rhetoric with little effects on realities.

I don't think fear of violent blacks caused the progress. "Cold War Civil Rights" by Dudziak shows that the US Govt was afraid of their perceptions abroad in regards to race relations. By not showing compassion to the movement and denouncing the hateful acts of racists, it could have furthered the agenda of enemies abroad (mainly the USSR). So it's not fearing the violent acts of blacks, it's the fear of the perception that people were not being treated "civilly" in a democracy. By continuing the policy of non-violence, MLK fed the news cycle with events such as sit-downs and marches that demonstrated images of black people being treated like crap. The impact of the water hose' and dog' pictures and videos and the subsequent transmission to the rest of the world cannot be understated

 

[bijald0331]

I just can't put Malcolm on the same pedestal as Martin and Thurgood when Malcolm admits his 12 years in NOI was a mistake. Again, all of that I see with Malcolm is bombastic rhetoric with little effects on realities.

I don't think fear of violent blacks caused the progress. "Cold War Civil Rights" by Dudziak shows that the US Govt was afraid of their perceptions abroad in regards to race relations. By not showing compassion to the movement and denouncing the hateful acts of racists, it could have furthered the agenda of enemies abroad (mainly the USSR). So it's not fearing the violent acts of blacks, it's the fear of the perception that people were not being treated "civilly" in a democracy. By continuing the policy of non-violence, MLK fed the news cycle with events such as sit-downs and marches that demonstrated images of black people being treated like crap. The impact of the water hose' and dog' pictures and videos and the subsequent transmission to the rest of the world cannot be understated

 

[nat turner]

AntonLaVey wrote:

Lemme put it this way...white people weren't any more scared of malcom as they were of MLK for attempting to effect social change.
Wrong. When Mike Wallace aired his documentary that exposed the Black musilm movement, White people were terrified. They thought that all Black people in America were Christian, and many thought they were not a real threat. "The Hate That Hate Produced" changed that opinion.  

AntonLaVey wrote:

 If I were white people I would be more terrified of MLK getting some white people on his side,
You are not "white", therefore not qualifed to suggest what they should or should not think.

AntonLaVey wrote:

Believe it or not, getting the majority support IS a huge help when trying to achieve social justice. People in here are acting like white people supporting MLK is such a terrible thing.


True, but achieving and then having your own, is just as much of a powerful statement.

AntonLaVey wrote:

But yea, I've already said I respect both, I'm just not fond of Malcom's approach.


No problem there, but you are not a descendant of slaves in America. We....may have a different opinion about who did what, be we see how important ALL were in the struggle.

AntonLaVey wrote:

Why don't you have any words for the people in here calling MLK an "Uncle Tom"?
They are misinformed, just as you.

AntonLaVey wrote:
 

Yea that's what I thought, you just felt like arguing with me.
Don't play the victim, quite the hypocritical position, don't you think? Check your sig....

AntonLaVey wrote:

There are many other people in here choosing a fav, but not as respectfully as I have.

Subjective.

AntonLaVey wrote:

Why don't you call them out as well?
  They don't have your sig....

 

[nat turner]

AntonLaVey wrote:

Lemme put it this way...white people weren't any more scared of malcom as they were of MLK for attempting to effect social change.
Wrong. When Mike Wallace aired his documentary that exposed the Black musilm movement, White people were terrified. They thought that all Black people in America were Christian, and many thought they were not a real threat. "The Hate That Hate Produced" changed that opinion.  

AntonLaVey wrote:

 If I were white people I would be more terrified of MLK getting some white people on his side,
You are not "white", therefore not qualifed to suggest what they should or should not think.

AntonLaVey wrote:

Believe it or not, getting the majority support IS a huge help when trying to achieve social justice. People in here are acting like white people supporting MLK is such a terrible thing.


True, but achieving and then having your own, is just as much of a powerful statement.

AntonLaVey wrote:

But yea, I've already said I respect both, I'm just not fond of Malcom's approach.


No problem there, but you are not a descendant of slaves in America. We....may have a different opinion about who did what, be we see how important ALL were in the struggle.

AntonLaVey wrote:

Why don't you have any words for the people in here calling MLK an "Uncle Tom"?
They are misinformed, just as you.

AntonLaVey wrote:
 

Yea that's what I thought, you just felt like arguing with me.
Don't play the victim, quite the hypocritical position, don't you think? Check your sig....

AntonLaVey wrote:

There are many other people in here choosing a fav, but not as respectfully as I have.

Subjective.

AntonLaVey wrote:

Why don't you call them out as well?
  They don't have your sig....

 

[bijald0331]

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

 

[bijald0331]

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

 

[b smooth 202]

SMH...same ole story in here

 

[b smooth 202]

SMH...same ole story in here

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

To be quite honest, you don't have a point. For you to say that you are NOT Black, I don't see how your opinion on how Black people view their leaders, as being any of your business.


  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

To be quite honest, you don't have a point. For you to say that you are NOT Black, I don't see how your opinion on how Black people view their leaders, as being any of your business.


  

 

[calibeebee]

They shot malcolm in the chest front of his little seeds
Jesse watched, as they shot king on the balcony
They spat at marcus, garvey cause he tried to spark us
With the knowledge of ourselves, and our forefathers

 

[calibeebee]

They shot malcolm in the chest front of his little seeds
Jesse watched, as they shot king on the balcony
They spat at marcus, garvey cause he tried to spark us
With the knowledge of ourselves, and our forefathers

 

[torgriffith]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

What is shameful  about 2pac speaking on MLK? Is his opinion not valid because he was the archetype of "gangsta rap" ?  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk. The 2 came form different time periods yet they share sooo many similarities. Just because  pac would say and do in public what MLK was groomed to keep as a "private life" doesn't make one more official than the other.  They both capitalized off their image.  Pac grew up in a blackpanther environment and is more diplomatic in his philosophy than King. The future will tell. 
Pac knew  who was even in the midsts of the commercial thug image he knew he was selling. He told us to peep game and not fall for the hype cuz hes getting money.  MLK just straight up sold his dream and image. But i do admit that the media was a different age back then and was purelly sensational and that as MLK's soap box. Pac's era in media was about social entertainment conformity which was his soapbox.

This is my opinion....

 

[torgriffith]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

What is shameful  about 2pac speaking on MLK? Is his opinion not valid because he was the archetype of "gangsta rap" ?  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk. The 2 came form different time periods yet they share sooo many similarities. Just because  pac would say and do in public what MLK was groomed to keep as a "private life" doesn't make one more official than the other.  They both capitalized off their image.  Pac grew up in a blackpanther environment and is more diplomatic in his philosophy than King. The future will tell. 
Pac knew  who was even in the midsts of the commercial thug image he knew he was selling. He told us to peep game and not fall for the hype cuz hes getting money.  MLK just straight up sold his dream and image. But i do admit that the media was a different age back then and was purelly sensational and that as MLK's soap box. Pac's era in media was about social entertainment conformity which was his soapbox.

This is my opinion....

 

[nawlinsjunkie]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk.

 

[nawlinsjunkie]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk.

This is the most idiotic thing I have read on NT, since TBone said that the KKK was a civil rights group. 

  

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk.

This is the most idiotic thing I have read on NT, since TBone said that the KKK was a civil rights group. 

  

 

[bijald0331]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

bijald0331 wrote:

---

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

To be quite honest, you don't have a point. For you to say that you are NOT Black, I don't see how your opinion on how Black people view their leaders, as being any of your business.


  


You are a waste of human existence. That is all.

 

[bijald0331]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

bijald0331 wrote:

---

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

To be quite honest, you don't have a point. For you to say that you are NOT Black, I don't see how your opinion on how Black people view their leaders, as being any of your business.


  


You are a waste of human existence. That is all.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Anton has a point. No one on the other side will let anything he says go yet they will freely let people disgrace MLK's name by quoting some Tupac lyric. It's a shame

That should be heavily denounced.

What is shameful  about 2pac speaking on MLK? Is his opinion not valid because he was the archetype of "gangsta rap" ?  Looking back on history in the future, IMO I believe pac will be praised more than mlk. The 2 came form different time periods yet they share sooo many similarities. Just because  pac would say and do in public what MLK was groomed to keep as a "private life" doesn't make one more official than the other.  They both capitalized off their image.  Pac grew up in a blackpanther environment and is more diplomatic in his philosophy than King. The future will tell. 
Pac knew  who was even in the midsts of the commercial thug image he knew he was selling. He told us to peep game and not fall for the hype cuz hes getting money.  MLK just straight up sold his dream and image. But i do admit that the media was a different age back then and was purelly sensational and that as MLK's soap box. Pac's era in media was about social entertainment conformity which was his soapbox.

This is my opinion....

Stokely Carmicheal used to call King, "de lawd".  In some circles, many felt that King got too much exposure, and credit, for the perceived successes of the struggle. I agree with that, as I've stated, King did his share, as Malcolm provided the fear, stimulating the Black youth, which in part helped to create the Black panther movement, SNIC, then Thurgood went after the law.

All were relevant.