In closing, it's people like you who have derailed (and continue to derail) progressive movements since this nation's inception. You seem more caught up in your supposed intellectual superiority than in discourse that may lead to progress.
I'll take this back to the high road. But not before I ask you what this comment is indicative of?
quote:Perogative Granting or assuming one's Intellect Superiority?
One could argue that MLK did nothing... One could argue that and from a literalist interpretation one would be correct. While technically correct, you would also be out of your rabid-ass mind.
And I guess I'm to assume you were talking to the air? and none of that was directed at what you assumed to be my arguments/position? (Note: I'm pretty sure only myself and FAHEEM could have been seen as on Malcolm X side at that time... So playing that "I wasn't talking to you" game is a little lame.)
ANyway... (that's all off the high road)
Let's talk about this "derailing" effect.
First did the actions of the DEACONS "derail" the Civil Rights Movement?
I won't even ask you how you can attribute (if you do) the CRM to MLK as if he invented it and organized it 'from the ground up'...
Did the CRM accomplish it's objectives? Did it?
If so then what is all this talk about "derailing" for? (See, when I asked you straight questions like this earlier you didn't care to respond but instead wanted to talk about people being out of their "rabid-a$$ mind(s)".)
Well, SOLOMONIC, since I can't help but to assume that you feel that Malcolm X's philosophy was at least not at all helpful to the CRM if not part of the "derailing" process... Could you please reconcile the following observation:
- "Looking back on the strategies, efforts, organizations, leaders, and results of everyone involved in the civil rights movement of the 60's I must admit one thing. The non-violent movement to integrate African-Americans into the general society only fought a battle. Our strategy did not take into account all aspects of the struggle. We won what we fought for...we did not fight for enough. Malcolm X had the best plan. He saw the problem correctly and developed a strategy for total victory." - James Farmer (founder of C.O.R.E.)
Also could you illustrate how it is that you "want to debate effectually"? You weren't talking to anyone in particular remember? - aka didn't engage anyone directly as not to elicit any direct response. Hmmmm.... Is that an advanced debate technique?
And, no, it was your "rabid a$$ mind" comment that started the 'spiral' and attacks.
It's almost as if you'd rather have your way or no way at all--to hell with rather someone else's idea works or not.
If I say I feel no need to choose one or the other that really means I'm against an idea that works right? Right?
You might want to check your own opinion. You come down squarely on one side and apparently nothing can be said to you... You have, in effect, said, "TO HELL with anyone who sees value in Malcolm X's stance". Have you not?
I think Faheem makes a compelling point of what Malcolm X was able to do to inspire others to do.
Again, did or did the CRM not accomplished its objectives? If it did, how was it "derailed" or jeopardized? And how do you square James Farmer comments with your perspective?