Originally posted by blaqfist:
However upon further reflection MX admonished us to demand our collective Human Rights. MLK's passivity almost bordered on the criminal. You don't allow anyone to put his or her hands on you. That is not even common sense.
Don't you think that Martin's approach was predicated upon choosing (what in his view was) the most effective tactic to achieve his objective? As with Ghandi before him, Martin chose non-violence/passive resistance as a tactic to get what he wanted. Does anyone think that Martin wanted freedom any less than Malcolm? Perhaps he just selected a tactic that he believed would be most effective in fighting against a vastly superior violent/military/police force to achieve his objective.
I wonder if people would have come to think of MX the way many think about Yassir Arafat now. Many consider him a failure for pressing a violent and unyielding approach against a far superior violent power in Israel. I wonder if Palestinians would have achieved their goals faster if they had adopted a passive resistant/Ghandi-like approach that would have allowed them to generate worldwide sympathy and support against the Israeli/U.S. bloc?
I clearly understand why many embrace MX. I just wonder whether his approach was the smartest in terms of its likelihood of success. Violence may have made us feel stronger/better etc., I'm just not sure it would have gotten us closer to equality in America.
What do you all think?
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela