Skip to main content

Reply to "Does MLK Get A Bad Rap?"

* - It's like comparing the effectiveness of the run and passing games of an NFL team. Both are a part of the offense. They both share the same objective of scoring points. They are different tactics, however. MLK was Doug Williams. A great quarterback with a ridiculously strong arm. Hence, he threw the ball. MX was Jim Brown - one of the best runners ever. He combined strength and speed in a way that dominated his opponents. Both Doug and Jim wanted to score touchdowns. All I'm suggesting is a conversation about the relative perception of the two.

Besides drifting back into the conflicting ideas of [1] saying both a good passing game (MLK) and a good running game (MX) are a part of [one good] offense and then [2] trying to separate the two by "comparing" them which seems to imply that they were on separate teams (**Note: I never heard of a team say the Kansas City Chiefs "comparing" their running game and passing game in an abstraction and trying to say in more or less absolute terms which one was more effective as if to say which is the best method to maintain and try to the exclusion of the other)...

I challenge this idea of accepting the "popular" notions because I challenge whether the "popular" version can adequately "capture" the essence of either whether it "popular" from an African-American perspective or general American perspective - and I think the "popular" conception is way too influenced by the conception of or reaction to [White] American perspectives.

I think the popular notions especially the way you described it are based on emotions and not a necessarily a thorough rational examination of either. To the extent that you characterized MX as "violent" that characterization is gross over exaggerated and based on emotions, not rational thought and sorely lacks context.... context.

Did you see ROSEWOOD?
Do you remember the scene when the Klan was coming to burn down the families house?

Would you favor the family in that situation to not be "violent" and drop their shotguns when their life, family, home, and fortunes where threatened?

Seriously MBM... your bias based on "popular" conceptions and more heavily your repulsion of it (when it doesn't favor your preference for MLK) is so apparent. You have to own that.

I've been clear. I don't prefer to choose either. But if I have to make a choice, I too would choose MX because he didn't have a rigid, absolutist position. He had one that I see a capable of evolving.

And more importantly, you cannot avoid the question of whether MLK or whoever achieved "freedom" and deal with that paradox of why we are still today fighting some of the same battles.

You have to answer and not avoid whether it was FREEDOM or EQUALITY that was the objective(s). You have to define exactly what that means and then tell me whether either were achieved.

I resent your emotional... YOUR emotional characterization of MX. And with Ricardo's observation, your characterization or offering of what MLK stood for. How is it that (I'm sure) you reject the "popular" characterization of MLK as "passive" - aka whimpy compromiser - yet you accept the (unruly) "violent" one of MX shows your bias.

MBM, I don't choose on my own. Either they were part of the same team or they were not. Your choose one or the other pits one against the other. Call it intersquad game or whatever but that's what your exploration here does. Pits one against the other. One without the other, if... IF you are calling them the same team in the same game against a common enemy is a false evaluation.

To be frank, and going along with the football analogy, OUR TEAM is playing a season not one single game. And we may in fact be playing against the same rival team - home field or away. But you cannot say or predict that in every game and in every quarter that either the running game or the passing game will be and were "more productive" than the other because they both rely on each other or "balanced attack" in order to keep the opponent off balanced.

You want us to participate, IMO, in our own Divide and Conquer.

Okay, Mike Marks... You gonna fall in love and pass the ball because you've had so much "success" with that or are you gonna come to your senses and realize Marshall... Marshall... Marshall... is another potent weapon that makes your passing game even more potent?

There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou