Malcolm X thread.

[pusha c]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

what i'm saying is i prefer his (violent) method as opposed to mlk's (nonviolent) method of achieving equality. BOTH were needed though for balance

 

[got shoes]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

i feel you that is why i tried to calm it down a lil bit. But they did die for the name of equality, i was just considering what they did outside of the political system. Shame on me

. Thanks for pointing that out

 

[got shoes]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

i feel you that is why i tried to calm it down a lil bit. But they did die for the name of equality, i was just considering what they did outside of the political system. Shame on me

. Thanks for pointing that out

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

I usually don't agree with Diego on anything regarding race but I do agree with this. 

  

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

I usually don't agree with Diego on anything regarding race but I do agree with this. 

  

 

[airforce416]

Originally Posted by PUSHA C

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

what i'm saying is i prefer his (violent) method as opposed to mlk's (nonviolent) method of achieving equality. BOTH were needed though for balance

 

[airforce416]

Originally Posted by PUSHA C

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

what i'm saying is i prefer his (violent) method as opposed to mlk's (nonviolent) method of achieving equality. BOTH were needed though for balance

 

[i am knowledge]

Malcolm X did respect Martin LutherKing, and he realized how much of an influential character he was.  Yet, he had a real issue with King’smethods.  X believed that any black manthat teaches black people to turn the cheek and suffer peacefully after theyhave been doing that for 400 years is doing his people an injustice.  Moreover, X believed that these non-violentphilosophies were in fact disarming the black community of their God givennatural right of self-defense.  In an interviewX referred to the success of Gandhi’s passive resistant success in India, andexplained that these methods may indeed work in India where the Indiansoutnumber the whites one million to one, because that is like an elephantsitting on a mouse.  Yet, these practicesin America were like a mouse trying to sit on an elephant.  They just would not work.  X believed that King had gotten so entrenchedin the method that he lost sight of the end goal, and he felt it was importantfor King and other leaders to realize that it would be impossible to disarm thewhite community by confinement to any one method. 

 

[i am knowledge]

Malcolm X did respect Martin LutherKing, and he realized how much of an influential character he was.  Yet, he had a real issue with King’smethods.  X believed that any black manthat teaches black people to turn the cheek and suffer peacefully after theyhave been doing that for 400 years is doing his people an injustice.  Moreover, X believed that these non-violentphilosophies were in fact disarming the black community of their God givennatural right of self-defense.  In an interviewX referred to the success of Gandhi’s passive resistant success in India, andexplained that these methods may indeed work in India where the Indiansoutnumber the whites one million to one, because that is like an elephantsitting on a mouse.  Yet, these practicesin America were like a mouse trying to sit on an elephant.  They just would not work.  X believed that King had gotten so entrenchedin the method that he lost sight of the end goal, and he felt it was importantfor King and other leaders to realize that it would be impossible to disarm thewhite community by confinement to any one method. 

 

[shoxbb433]

Originally Posted by I AM KNOWLEDGE


Malcolm X did respect Martin LutherKing, and he realized how much of an influential character he was.  Yet, he had a real issue with King’smethods.  X believed that any black manthat teaches black people to turn the cheek and suffer peacefully after theyhave been doing that for 400 years is doing his people an injustice.  Moreover, X believed that these non-violentphilosophies were in fact disarming the black community of their God givennatural right of self-defense.  In an interviewX referred to the success of Gandhi’s passive resistant success in India, andexplained that these methods may indeed work in India where the Indiansoutnumber the whites one million to one, because that is like an elephantsitting on a mouse.  Yet, these practicesin America were like a mouse trying to sit on an elephant.  They just would not work.  X believed that King had gotten so entrenchedin the method that he lost sight of the end goal, and he felt it was importantfor King and other leaders to realize that it would be impossible to disarm thewhite community by confinement to any one method. 

Right, I wouldn't necessarily say X believed in violence, more in self-defense. There were times where X was linked to violent shootings and he adamantly denied being affiliated. 

 

[shoxbb433]

Originally Posted by I AM KNOWLEDGE


Malcolm X did respect Martin LutherKing, and he realized how much of an influential character he was.  Yet, he had a real issue with King’smethods.  X believed that any black manthat teaches black people to turn the cheek and suffer peacefully after theyhave been doing that for 400 years is doing his people an injustice.  Moreover, X believed that these non-violentphilosophies were in fact disarming the black community of their God givennatural right of self-defense.  In an interviewX referred to the success of Gandhi’s passive resistant success in India, andexplained that these methods may indeed work in India where the Indiansoutnumber the whites one million to one, because that is like an elephantsitting on a mouse.  Yet, these practicesin America were like a mouse trying to sit on an elephant.  They just would not work.  X believed that King had gotten so entrenchedin the method that he lost sight of the end goal, and he felt it was importantfor King and other leaders to realize that it would be impossible to disarm thewhite community by confinement to any one method. 

Right, I wouldn't necessarily say X believed in violence, more in self-defense. There were times where X was linked to violent shootings and he adamantly denied being affiliated. 

 

[bijald0331]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

Exact same thoughts running through my head. Especially that I'm not black and it mattering

 

[bijald0331]

Originally Posted by Diego

Malcolm X is appreciated.
MLK is appreciated.

But comparing them to each other and saying who is better as if they didnt die in the name of equality, I find to be a tad bit disrespectful.
Just my opinion.

Im not black if it matters.

Exact same thoughts running through my head. Especially that I'm not black and it mattering

 

[i am knowledge]

 TheBallot or The Bullet



The government hasfailed us. Anytime you live in the 20[sup]th[/sup]century, 1964, and singing We Shall Overcome, the government has failedus. Today it’s time to stop singing andstart swinging. – Malcolm X, 1964

http://www.youtube.com/v/CRNciryImqg&hl=en_US&fs=1http://www.youtube.com/v/CRNciryImqg&hl=en_US&fs=1



The Ballot or theBullet is a speech that was given in a period in which X was undergoing a formof mental metamorphosis. He hadseparated from the Nation of Islam, and before his separation Malcolm viewedhimself as only a spokesman of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. and wasdeveloping into a complete character of his own. Yet, it is evident that a certain amount ofkey elements that were imperative to his political consciousness wereconcretely defined.

This speech hassaid to be X’s response to King’s I havea dream speech, and while both of these men had the same ultimate goal; X’sspeech further personifies the difference in the methods they chose to reachthe end goal. In 1963 Martin Luther King helped orchestrate the famous March onWashington. This was done in attempt tomake light of the civil rights struggle in America, and it was also an attemptto encourage the United States Congress to enact civil rights legislation. Yet, by April 1964, no legislation had beenpassed, and blacks were extremely frustrated. In his speech Malcolm states,“The March on Washington did nothing. He[Congress] made you think you were going somewhere and the only place you endedwas between Lincoln and Washington (X, 1964).â€The fact is that the Congressmen were failing to uphold the values ofthe Constitution and represent, and this led to the volatile political climatethat resulted in X’s famous speech.

 

[i am knowledge]

 TheBallot or The Bullet



The government hasfailed us. Anytime you live in the 20[sup]th[/sup]century, 1964, and singing We Shall Overcome, the government has failedus. Today it’s time to stop singing andstart swinging. – Malcolm X, 1964

http://www.youtube.com/v/CRNciryImqg&hl=en_US&fs=1http://www.youtube.com/v/CRNciryImqg&hl=en_US&fs=1



The Ballot or theBullet is a speech that was given in a period in which X was undergoing a formof mental metamorphosis. He hadseparated from the Nation of Islam, and before his separation Malcolm viewedhimself as only a spokesman of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. and wasdeveloping into a complete character of his own. Yet, it is evident that a certain amount ofkey elements that were imperative to his political consciousness wereconcretely defined.

This speech hassaid to be X’s response to King’s I havea dream speech, and while both of these men had the same ultimate goal; X’sspeech further personifies the difference in the methods they chose to reachthe end goal. In 1963 Martin Luther King helped orchestrate the famous March onWashington. This was done in attempt tomake light of the civil rights struggle in America, and it was also an attemptto encourage the United States Congress to enact civil rights legislation. Yet, by April 1964, no legislation had beenpassed, and blacks were extremely frustrated. In his speech Malcolm states,“The March on Washington did nothing. He[Congress] made you think you were going somewhere and the only place you endedwas between Lincoln and Washington (X, 1964).â€The fact is that the Congressmen were failing to uphold the values ofthe Constitution and represent, and this led to the volatile political climatethat resulted in X’s famous speech.

 

[rashi]

I probably disagree with 99.9% of what Mr. Shabazz believes, but I really admire him.

His autobiography and Eldridge Cleaver's autobiography are probably the most overlooked pieces of literature of the 20th Century. Truly amazing works.

Eldridge Cleaver > Shabazz, though. My opinion.

 

[rashi]

I probably disagree with 99.9% of what Mr. Shabazz believes, but I really admire him.

His autobiography and Eldridge Cleaver's autobiography are probably the most overlooked pieces of literature of the 20th Century. Truly amazing works.

Eldridge Cleaver > Shabazz, though. My opinion.

 

[jking0821]

I always found it odd as a kid that in school we praised MLK and that in every History book there a chapter dedicated to MLK. But Malcolm is a footnote at best.

I always thought that was a subliminal message. That it is wrong to revolt and that passive is the way to go. Like MLK was right and Malcolm was wrong.


smh at school history books

 

[jking0821]

I always found it odd as a kid that in school we praised MLK and that in every History book there a chapter dedicated to MLK. But Malcolm is a footnote at best.

I always thought that was a subliminal message. That it is wrong to revolt and that passive is the way to go. Like MLK was right and Malcolm was wrong.


smh at school history books

 

[i am knowledge]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

I always found it odd as a kid that in school we praised MLK and that in every History book there a chapter dedicated to MLK. But Malcolm is a footnote at best.

I always thought that was a subliminal message. That it is wrong to revolt and that passive is the way to go. Like MLK was right and Malcolm was wrong.


smh at school history books

And what's ill about that is, Malcolm's philosophies are more aligned with American culture than King's ever will be.  

 

[i am knowledge]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

I always found it odd as a kid that in school we praised MLK and that in every History book there a chapter dedicated to MLK. But Malcolm is a footnote at best.

I always thought that was a subliminal message. That it is wrong to revolt and that passive is the way to go. Like MLK was right and Malcolm was wrong.


smh at school history books

And what's ill about that is, Malcolm's philosophies are more aligned with American culture than King's ever will be.  

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

I always found it odd as a kid that in school we praised MLK and that in every History book there a chapter dedicated to MLK. But Malcolm is a footnote at best.

I always thought that was a subliminal message. That it is wrong to revolt and that passive is the way to go. Like MLK was right and Malcolm was wrong.


smh at school history books

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with revolting with violence. The only problem is that you have to know when to use it for to be effective. When you are a very small minority, it's easy for the majority to use the use of violence against you and discredit what you are trying to do. On the other hand, MLK had a majority that used non-violence to get their point across. For example, do you know how long it took the people in this country to rise up against the British and finally using violence?
  

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

I always found it odd as a kid that in school we praised MLK and that in every History book there a chapter dedicated to MLK. But Malcolm is a footnote at best.

I always thought that was a subliminal message. That it is wrong to revolt and that passive is the way to go. Like MLK was right and Malcolm was wrong.


smh at school history books

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with revolting with violence. The only problem is that you have to know when to use it for to be effective. When you are a very small minority, it's easy for the majority to use the use of violence against you and discredit what you are trying to do. On the other hand, MLK had a majority that used non-violence to get their point across. For example, do you know how long it took the people in this country to rise up against the British and finally using violence?
  

 

[i am knowledge]

Originally Posted by ShoxBb433

Originally Posted by I AM KNOWLEDGE

Right, I wouldn't necessarily say X believed in violence, more in self-defense. There were times where X was linked to violent shootings and he adamantly denied being affiliated. 

Right, you can call it violence, or self-defense, but the fact of the matter is that X wanted to do more.  He was ready to escalate the situation because he didn't view African Americans as the minority in America, but as part of the majority of people of color that have been oppressed.  He saw what was going on, and envisioned an international revolt against colonialism, and since he looked at African Americans as an oppressed colony within America, he was ready to take it to the next level.  But, his NOI handler's wanted no part of that. 

 

[i am knowledge]

Originally Posted by ShoxBb433

Originally Posted by I AM KNOWLEDGE

Right, I wouldn't necessarily say X believed in violence, more in self-defense. There were times where X was linked to violent shootings and he adamantly denied being affiliated. 

Right, you can call it violence, or self-defense, but the fact of the matter is that X wanted to do more.  He was ready to escalate the situation because he didn't view African Americans as the minority in America, but as part of the majority of people of color that have been oppressed.  He saw what was going on, and envisioned an international revolt against colonialism, and since he looked at African Americans as an oppressed colony within America, he was ready to take it to the next level.  But, his NOI handler's wanted no part of that.