quote:MBM, "Passive" was your "popular" conception term. Admittedly I added "whimpy" to further characterize the "popular" conception but that's not at all what I think of it.
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.
I said I DON'T CHOOSE or feel the need to. I see them both as equally necessary and inseparable imperative.
What don't you understand about that? I've only said like 1000 times now!
quote:I'm not sure if Malcolm himself said that. I'm sure H. Rap Brown did it.
Second, I ascribe nothing to MX's motives/activities other than what is popularly held about him and captured in his "by any means necessary" phraseology. To many, that phrase "captures" Malcolm, probably in similar ways that words like passive resistance, and non-violence, and Ghandi-esque "captures" Martin. I have never seen a picture of MLK peering out a window with a shotgun in his hand. I've never seen anything to suggest that somehow "by any means necessary" has been inappropriately stretched by popular consensus. There is certainly plenty of dialog from Malcolm himself that speaks to his willingness to confront violence with violence. Remember, it's as American as cherry pie!
What don't you understand about self-defense?
I acknowledge that sometimes you have to "choose your battles" but... I really don't believe you would ABSOLUTELY tell your son to return a bully's violent aggression solely with non-violent passive resistance.
Would you? Seriously... would you?
Now about semantics... seriously...
Now, you know unless you are a CHESTERITE (no offense, JWC) that establishing "working definitions" about terms that are central to the discussion are your forte.
I've read some of your posts and you've said that... I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID LAST SUMMER! (in your posts).
Please don't offer something up for discussion then say they are irrelevant later on... I hope you know you would label that as problematic if some one else did that with you.
I love and esteem BOTH MLK and MX the same. That's what I evolved to. I started and was firmly set on MLK, then I turned to MX, now I appreciate them all the more and I am a purist on them BOTH.
If you want to play the "I've said that here and elsewhere game" then check my post, search my name and MLK... I can retrieve threads full from other forums. But you and I both know that isn't the point.
Simply, my contention is to stop at "popular" conceptions is to dwell and pale cliches and not substance or the essence of either. Plain and simple.
I love you brother, this forum and this dialogue.