Skip to main content

Reply to "Does MLK Get A Bad Rap?"

Moreover, let's face it, if blacks took up arms in the Amerikka of the 1950's and 60's where do you think that would have gotten us?
What are you talking about?

When you dispense with your ridiculous notions - i.e. presumptuous aSSinine, aSSumptive BULLSHIT! - about "taking up arms" then talk to me...

It also clear you're in need of a history lesson. Both to disavow you of the white-washed notions you have about Malcolm X and the whole idea of "what would have happened"...

No need for a hypothetical. RESEARCH the *DEACONS FOR DEFENSE and JUSTICE* , they "took up arms" right smack dab in the middle of the South... When you find some good info., come back and share it. I'm rather interested since I'm just now becoming aware of these "Bogalusa, LOUISANA blacks [who] came to feel that arming themselves for self-defense was their only solution."
It was not about convincing Bubba that you were a man, it was about proving to the electorate"”and therefore Congress"”the need to enact legislation guaranteeing equal rights and protection under the law.

Stating the obvious... and also choking on your own (implied) words. Who was questioning "manhood" here?

Ahhhh.... I think you were... remember? Confused
...if Malcolm X constantly alluded to violence but never actually practiced it then doesn't that make him someone who talked all that noise in the relative safety of the North while MLK risked his life practicing what he preached down South?
hmmm... What was it about again?? I lost the whole meaning of the movement in you idiotic rhetoric.

I've said plenty of times before and during this thread that I feel no need to choose between King and X. Apparently you have a problem with that. Apparently you can't understand that that in no-wise devalues or says that Malcolm X was better than King. I esteem them both.

But your MisEducation of The Negro in you see them in opposition... so you have to choose one... hmmm... I wonder why you make that choice and why the basis for your reasoning is so akin to... (well, you take a guess)
One could argue that MLK did nothing
F~ckin' IDIOT!!!

Nobody has said that. I sure the HELL didn't. So what f~ckin' SH*T "argument" did you pull out your a$$ and roll up in a cheese-ball and think somebody ever did or would dip in that sh*t with a cracker?

Just because you dislike Malcolm X and because your DUMB BLACK A$$ has been taught by White people that to esteem him is to assault King, doesn't mean I've been "HoodWinked, Run-Amuck, BAMBoozled" or hit on the head by the white plymouth rock!

STUPID! Don't try to over-exaggerate and bastardize what I've said and try to take it to some ridiculous a$$ extreme, claiming that said or suggested that MLK "did nothing"...

There's a simple thing called CUT & PASTE - i.e. quote what I said that made you come up with and/or think I said that.
Overall, are we better off today than we were 40 years ago? If your answer is no then I suspect you were born after 1966.
What kind of question is that? Where the hell does that come from? Who said we are not better off today?

I was born in 1970... But I'm fairly well acquainted with that history. I guess your old a$$ can't appreciate and properly characterize the changes and battles won with the Abolition Of Slavery since you were born after 1865??? huh? Is that how that works?

After slavery end and Jim Crow began to intensify with lynching etc. Would you be talking about, "Lord, we's bees so much better off nah dan den. They's burnin' mah chirch as wee speek. But that makes me no neber mind... longs I not a slave no mo. It's so much bet-tah nah!"

brosmileMr. Out-Of-His Rabid-A$$ Mind! winkgrin

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on December 07, 2003 at 04:35 AM.]