Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This is quite a challenge. I can't give an "end-all" answer. Philosophies are a product of their times. They may not travel well through time. The "Never Again1" of African America's chattel slavery does. As does the "Never Again!" of the holocaust of WWII.

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).

I don't think "By Any Means Necessary" are "applicable to the times" in the United States today.

I do think "By Any Means Necessary" is the corollary to "Never Again" for African American, and should be applied, judiciously, and as needed.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
I think today, "by any means necessary" still applies. But it can't mean the same thing it meant back then. The relevant definition of "necessary" in my dictionary is, "needed in order to bring about a certain effect or result." What this strongly implies is that the means that are "necessary" to secure equality inherently must only include those means that would actually be effective in bringing about equality. Since political violence would destroy black equality, rather than secure it, it is not an option. If it would not be effective, then it is not necessary.

Therefore, there's no problem with the phrase itseld. We absolutely should strive to secure equality by any means necessary. But violent, armed struggle is no longer included among those means, because the clear disaster it would bring about removes it from the operative definition of "necessary."
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I think today, "by any means necessary" still applies. But it can't mean the same thing it meant back then. The relevant definition of "necessary" in my dictionary is, "needed in order to bring about a certain effect or result." What this strongly implies is that the means that are "necessary" to secure equality inherently must only include those means that would actually be effective in bringing about equality. Since political violence would destroy black equality, rather than secure it, it is not an option. If it would not be effective, then it is not necessary.

Therefore, there's no problem with the phrase itseld. We absolutely should strive to secure equality by any means necessary. But violent, armed struggle is no longer included among those means, because the clear disaster it would bring about removes it from the operative definition of "necessary."
tHANK yOU, vox!!!

My thoughts exactly.
"By Any Means Necessary" = an assertive affirmation and declaration to do *Whatever I "have" to do!*

Righteous goals requires righteous actions. I don't think any of us honestly get the impression that Malcolm X would have or advocated lying, cheatin' and stealin'...
Someone could exaggerate that "By any means necessary" means 'anything goes', but I think VOX illustrated how what is "necessary" has by definition, built-in parameters.
I knew that back in the 60's, "by any means necessary" implied that black people should be willing to employ all tactics up to and including violence to secure humane treatment, respect, dignity, and self-sufficiency. I never thought it was only about violence. I was always impressed by the ATTITUDE that blacks should accept nothing less than full freedom, full humanity, full participation in the world. That's still true today. The struggle, as they say, continues...
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

_I don't think "By Any Means Necessary" are "applicable to the times" in the United States today._



JWC, please back away from the Holiday spiked egg nog! fro


negrospiritual:

"Eyes of the beholder." I see all the posts being on the same track.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
negrospiritual ...

Don't wory about JWC. And please don't ask him to support, demonstrate, or elaborate on what he says.... (Oh! The Monstrosity!! Eek .... Big Grin)

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...
Now Nmaginate, I don't know if he was talking about a strategy of violence, but didn't Malcolm mean that being non-violent in the face of violence was not sensible? I'll defer to you on that, but there are 2 main things I like about what he said, and why what he said makes sense even if he did mean violence as a strategy :

1) It was absolutely imperative that this country saw us as angry, indignant and defiant, about our plight. If you don't express absolute outrage, and a desire to kick somebody's ass if they keep effing with you, how do you expect them to give you the respect necessary to stop effing with you?

2) The threat of militantism, even if it would have harmed us if outrightly taken up, was still ugly to white America. I personally am convinced that this fact is why they worked to meet the demands of Dr. King and the mainstream movement. Let's say you can't stand any form of white pop or rock music. You may HATE Avril Lavigne, but if the real threat exists that you may have to sit and listen to Courtney Love or Marilyn Manson, you're going to be A-okay with listening to Avril Lavigne. That, and I feel strongly about this, is the one of the greatest legacies of Malcolm X, and the single greatest legacy of "By any means necessary."
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
Hi JWC

could you elaborate on that? Whatcha mean by "i see all the posts being on t he same track"?


The consensus thus far seems to be to do what is needed to assure success today, in today's society. One specifies the probability of success by violent means, and says it is not a recommended option.

I think Malcolm meant "by any means necessary' literally. He was not reluctant to say so.

Please note the board is filled with "lol"; "IMO"; "IMHO". There constant point of not taking a stance that MAY be interpreted as offensive, or "against the grain."

I think "by any means necessary" should mean today what it meant when Malcolm said it. It offers no malice where there is no malice.

"By any means necessary" was intended as a responsive statement. It was not a promise of unprovoked attack.

When the phrase was first use by Malcolm, African America was under open attack. The threat today is much less direct, but no less specific. And there is no open civil violence.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×