Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Besides drifting back into the conflicting ideas of  saying both a good passing game (MLK) and a good running game (MX) are a part of [one good] offense and then  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)...
Friend, in business people talk all day, everyday, comparing and contrasting different business strategies. Go to a library or bookstore; there are thousands of titles on how and why different companies did their thing in different ways? The objective of business is to maximize shareholder wealth. There are an almost infinite number of strategies and tactics to do that however. Same with military strategy. The objective is to secure military victory. Ever read Clausewitz or Sun Tzu regarding strategy and tactics?
Why is it so difficult to consider that the two had different approaches, but similar objectives? Why is it so problematic to see that people embrace both men, but do so differently? Why is it troubling to attempt to dissect the cause and nature of those differences in perception? In looking at perception, isn't it reasonable to look at how the men thought, what they believed, and also what they accomplished?
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.
Cool. Perhaps this conversation isn't for you then. Without regard to how they are derived, there are popular conceptions of each man. You may not like it how they were created, but popular opinion exists nevertheless.
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.
You're arguing a completely separate point here. I am not analyzing the physiology of popular opinion. Just acknowledging that it exists around Martin and Malcolm and trying to understand it in this case. Whether popular opinion meets your personal threshold for logic does not obviate the fact that it exists.
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?
Strategy is a decision to proceed down a particular path that one thinks will most effectively and efficiently achieve one's ultimate objectives? Absent evidence to shift strategies, one commits to a path and executes it.
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.
You sound like Bankins trying to tell me what I think and believe! I have no bias here - despite your remonstrance to the contrary. I've asked a question to promote dialog. Just because you disagree with the premise of the question doesn't by definition mean that I have to fall on the side of the argument that you disagree with.
I've been clear. I don't prefer to choose either.
Great, but to be equally clear, no one has asked you to do that. Perhaps you do not see a difference in perception between the two men. This thread isn't directed to you then.
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.
Why do you deny MLK the same opportunity to be thoughtful and analytical that you give MX? (The right to adjust strategies according to the ebb and flow of the fight?)
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.
I HAVE NOWHERE SUGGESTED THAT WE ARE IN NIRVANA. We are talking about incremental gains toward the ultimate objective. (Do you remember who you're talking to here? This ain't sergeant! )
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.
NMag - I'm going to start calling you the 'Semantic Man'!
Both freedom and equality were objectives. There were incremental gains in both.
I resent your emotional... YOUR emotional characterization of MX.
I hope in rereading your words that you can see the stark irony laced throughout them! Bruh, I have not characterized either except by the general perceptions that exist about them. I have been careful to clearly articulate that I have placed NO VALUE JUDGMENTS on either man or approach. All I have done is acknowledge that there is a difference in approach and perception, and attempt to analyze each. PERIOD.
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.
Actually your response gets precisely to an element of this issue that I am curious about. I sense people focusing more on nuance than on strategy. I can 't say any better than has already been said, passive resistance is not passivity. It is a strategy to overcome a more powerful foe. If you are Roy Jones getting ready to fight Mike Tyson - the smart, strategic approach would be to BOX Tyson (dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee!) as opposed to stand there a trade with him.
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.
I have merely noted the distinctions that others make, and seek to better understand it. You're reading some effort on my part to force you to make a choice THAT IS NOT THERE.
IF you are calling them the same team in the same game against a common enemy is a false evaluation.
They chose different strategies. PERIOD. What is false about that "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.
Actually I agree. I said the same much earlier in this thread - and probably in others as well. It is the fact that others make distinctions that seem to more heavily distribute their respect to MX that is the core of my curiosity on this point.
You want us to participate, IMO, in our own Divide and Conquer.
Respectfully and affectionately - bullshit! You know that is not the point of this thread. I've not said anything to reasonably infer anything of the kind.
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela