Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Sorry but you can't evaluate either MLK or MX with really examining how they might have actually concieved those concepts differently and answer whether that accounts for the different stances and different results.
I believe that they both were fighting for EXACTLY the same thing: black liberation. Further, I ascribe no meaning to the words "equality" and "freedom" outside of their generally accepted uses.
OK, now what? Is the point of this line of questioning that you are making the distinction that MX was fighting for "separate but equal" whereas MLK was fighting for just "equal"?
One more question: (you will wonder if this is relevant too)
On principle, do you compromise with a terrorist?
It depends on what your objective is. If your objective is to bring home your daughter who has been taken captive, then yes - at all costs you negotiate. If your objective is to deter future terror for a nation, then perhaps no. There are no "right" and "wrong" strategies outside of context. Strategy can only be evaluated/compared against a common objective and context.
Nmag - that's a key point of this thread. You can't evaluate strategies and tactics without understanding the objectives that drive them. IF MLK and MX shared the same objective (we can debate that particular question as well if you like) then it should be easy to evaluate the relative merits of each strategy against the shared objective.
So, are they on the same team or not?
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela