negrospiritual ...Don't wory about JWC. And please don't ask him to support, demonstrate, or elaborate on what he says.... (Oh! The Monstrosity!!
....
)
IMHO,
"By Any Means Necessary" was all about ASSERTIVENESS and a DETERMINED stance to not be detered... I still will and always will insist that we stop from defining the more "militant" aspect of The Movement as one that thought or sought "violence" as a means to an ends. (see Vox's statement again)
I'm surprised (...*cough*... No I'm Not!) that JWC, a person who's major issue is all about what we call ourselves ("Black" or otherwise) and feels that it's an example of how WE ARE OUR OWN WORST ENEMIES because somehow 'we' have bought into the [White] European definition of "WHAT" we are and limiting ourselves to that.... would be so quick to (I can only assume because he is never forthright...) to buy in to what is IMO the White [European] definition of The Movement's "militant" branches.
I challenge someone who holds the view that Malcolm X, etc. advocated "violence" as a strategy to prove that there was such a plan laid out were he/they felt like certain acts of violence were to be employed in particular ways to achieve some aspect of an overall strategy.
There's a difference between resolving to be completely non-violent (passive resistant), advocating either vigilante or Intifada type violence and not resigning one's self to either position... especially one where one might feel is beneath one's human dignity to DEFEND one's self.
I go back to the Bully Analogy I posed on a similar topic. I doubt very seriously that anyone here would suggest to their son that he should be non-violent in the face on daily aggression from a bully.... I think we all know what the consensus is about handling such a situation.
quote:
Then President Nelson Mandela declined to include "By Any Means Necessary" in his reading of Malcolm's speech when he read it for the ending of the movie "Malcolm X."
He said it was not prudent for the times (of his nation, South Africa).
As for this misleading reference, beyond asking for some proof that this was the case (a simple quote will do)... I'll again cite from something I've posted before:
Mandela: On Ghandi and [Non]-Violence
Violence and nonviolence are not mutually exclusive; it is the predominance of the one or the other that labels a struggle. - "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence." - Nelson Mandela
Also here's another quick take on Mandela's stance and what he thought about "violence":
. Mandela was initially opposed to violence, but after a massacre of unarmed black South Africans in 1962, he began advocating acts of sabotage against the government.
That's just to set the record straight on Mandela and the idea of "violence"... or rather strong, assertive and, perhaps, 'confrontational' stances...
