Skip to main content

Many black folks revere Malcolm X with a passion and devotion that is profound. That's a good thing. He earned and deserves it. At the same time, their feelings toward Martin Luther King Jr. are "warm" and reverential, but less strong. My sense is that many respect and admire Malcolm's more militant, "by any means necessary", approach. This, particularly so in contrast to Martin's non-violent stance. They perceive non-violence perhaps as appealing to white accommodation as opposed to demanding and taking our freedom. At the end of the day, though, didn't they both share the same objectives? Didn't they both fight and die for black liberty? In some sense, didn't the fact that there was a Martin make Malcolm more effective, and vice versa?

At the end of the day, who did more for black people? While Malcolm's militance feeds our collective thirst for self-determination and power, didn't Martin's non-violent approach actually accomplish more for African America? Does MLK get a bad rap sometimes by those that admire the more aggressive tactic, despite perhaps its less effective results?

What do you think?


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela


[This message was edited by MBM on December 05, 2003 at 04:06 PM.]

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

MLK probably gets more credit for changes or providing the impetus for change in the American Civil Rights landscape. However upon further reflection MX admonished us to demand our collective Human Rights. MLK's passivity almost bordered on the criminal. You don't allow anyone to put his or her hands on you. That is not even common sense. They both had their good and bad points. Conversely, black people were not collectively able to do battle with white people as MX's philosophy implies. Open conflict in the 50's & 60's was not really a viable option either.
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:

However upon further reflection MX admonished us to demand our collective Human Rights. MLK's passivity almost bordered on the criminal. You don't allow anyone to put his or her hands on you. That is not even common sense.


Don't you think that Martin's approach was predicated upon choosing (what in his view was) the most effective tactic to achieve his objective? As with Ghandi before him, Martin chose non-violence/passive resistance as a tactic to get what he wanted. Does anyone think that Martin wanted freedom any less than Malcolm? Perhaps he just selected a tactic that he believed would be most effective in fighting against a vastly superior violent/military/police force to achieve his objective.

I wonder if people would have come to think of MX the way many think about Yassir Arafat now. Many consider him a failure for pressing a violent and unyielding approach against a far superior violent power in Israel. I wonder if Palestinians would have achieved their goals faster if they had adopted a passive resistant/Ghandi-like approach that would have allowed them to generate worldwide sympathy and support against the Israeli/U.S. bloc?

I clearly understand why many embrace MX. I just wonder whether his approach was the smartest in terms of its likelihood of success. Violence may have made us feel stronger/better etc., I'm just not sure it would have gotten us closer to equality in America.

What do you all think?


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
When I was young, I admired Malcolm and was disgusted with Martin. But as I got older and was able to gain access to more information regarding MLK, I did come to understand that sometimes the bravest thing a person can do is refrain from violence. I know now that Martin knew that any show of violence would send the wrong message to white America of what Black people were about and wanted. I know now that Martin knew how many Black people would have suffered for every blow of self-defense he gave against the violence perpetuated against him and the protesters. When I was young I thought Martin was just another weak bowed down "negro," now I know better. Both men merely had a different road to travel towards freedom and equality, with both roads ending at the same place.
You present, IMO, a false positive and, for certain, conflicting ideas with your own exploration here. How at once you can ask a conclusive rhetorical question:

    At the end of the day, though, didn't they both share the same objectives? Didn't they both fight and die for black liberty? In some sense, didn't the fact that there was a Martin make Malcolm more effective, and vice versa?
...that, IMO, suggests that the two philosophies are necessary and inseparable then revert back to posing questions and ultimately forcing a choice between the two - i.e. re-fragmenting, IMO, what it seems you first tried to consolidate - is puzzling to me. I will try to stay away from cliches but I see no reason to choose and do, indeed, see them as inseparable. (So forgive me if I misinterpreted or input my idea of them being parts of one interconnected and unbreakable whole.)

I think to ask which one of them have done the most for us when essentially we're talking about their ideals, IMO, is to trivialize them and lock they're ideals into their person and in their lifetime. I think it goes without saying that their ideals transcend their actual life-work and accomplishments while they were here.

So I see those concepts as conflicting. I understand perhaps your plea (don't trip over the term) to give credit where credit is due by acknowledging MLK and what "he" was able to accomplish but what I find problematic is the underlying assumption that that philosophy which you stated fulfilled its objective is one that should be held up as functional if not optimal for what others, myself included, may see as objectives that go beyond what "MLK accomplished".

That's what really is at issue, MBM - whether MLK philosophy can accomplish more than what we have. There seems to be, IMO, the pretense implicit in your exploration here that we have acheived "Black Liberation" via MLK. I will definitely contend we have not achieved that ultimate end and that's what accounts for the difference of opinion and reverence of the two.

I would only ask that if you feel that MLK acheived "Black Liberation" then why is it that we still have some of the fundamental challenges and questions about things that we have to acknowledge as his Dream's that are Unfulfilled? In essence, how can we pretend that MLK's objectives were accomplished when many of them have been admittedly abandoned if explored at all.

To rap it up, I defend and promote them both and feel no need to choose. I think we do ourselves a disservice by doing so. Also, one has to ask which philosophy, beyond cliches and simplistic (mis)representations of them, is the most instructive today. Not yesterday, but today. That, I think, will answer why there is a divergence and perhaps underappreciation of MLK.

I often argue that both were in favor of REPARATIONS... I think we know that "objective" stands... (And for you fake "personal responsibility" B-Con's Malcolm X - and the NOI for that matter - definitely stood for that and actually inspired poor Blacks to in fact be "responsible" but most of your fake asses will not acknowledge them because your master doesn't. Mad)

You must also understand that there always was a competing school of thought. Again, the pretense is that MLK acheived "Black Liberation". Well, I venture to say that those of a different philosophy then just like general political ideologies now and then will hardly credit the other with "accomplishing" objectives, reserving the right to say that the other never understood the full "objective" let alone fully acheived it.

That's the issue if you ask me. It all revolves around whether merely defeating segregation and attaining some level of legal equality equates to Black Liberation. For sure, Malcolm and Martin defined those differently. You, with all due respect, have to acknowledge whose philosophy and definition you agree with then square that with what we continue to grapple with today.

How do you define Black Liberation? Has it been achieved?
JUXTAPOSITION:
quote:
  • At the end of the day, though, didn't they both share the same objectives? Didn't they both fight and die for black liberty? In some sense, didn't the fact that there was a Martin make Malcolm more effective, and vice versa?

  • At the end of the day, who did more for black people?
  • Are we talking about the same "end" of the same "day"? Do you not see the contradictory/conflicting ideas there?
    quote:
    Does MLK get a bad rap sometimes by those that admire the more aggressive tactic, despite perhaps its less effective results?
    That presumes that both held the same objective - i.e. defined it the same - and that you can objectively measure or plot on some scale or rather on the same scale where they both rank. I'm not sure you can do that.

    Anyway... if you tell the truth we continue to revisit the very things Malcolm X presented... And, of course, some of what MLK did too, but that is definitely to a lesser extent. So, how can you say there is ultimate "success" on the ultimate "goal"?
    LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS??

    I think there 's an inherent compromise with that kind of approach. By what and more importantly whose standard are you determining what makes it likely?
    quote:
    I wonder if people would have come to think of MX the way many think about Yassir Arafat now. Many consider him a failure for pressing a violent and unyielding approach against a far superior violent power in Israel. I wonder if Palestinians would have achieved their goals faster if they had adopted a passive resistant/Ghandi-like approach that would have allowed them to generate worldwide sympathy and support against the Israeli/U.S. bloc?
    I'm glad you mentioned.

    Seriously, do you not think that the idea that the Palestinians would have "accomplished their goals" had they done things the way Israel and the U.S. suggested (and they have ardently supported non-violence for Palestinians.... hmmm... ) is a bit disingenious? Do you really feel any of the Peace Accords equate to what the Palestinians desire without a lop-sided compromise on their part or really no real compromise on Israel part? Seriously?

    Do you feel they've ever been presented with a fair deal? And why is this about sympathy? I regard that as fair-weather type of friendship...
    quote:
    I clearly understand why many embrace MX. I just wonder whether his approach was the smartest in terms of its likelihood of success. Violence may have made us feel stronger/better etc., I'm just not sure it would have gotten us closer to equality in America.

    What are we talking about FREEDOM or EQUALITY? Do you see them as one in the same? I don't... depending on how you creatively define them.

    Again, there's conflicting ideas here, IMO.

    To reduce Malcolm X philosophy or tactics to employing violence is simply wrong, MBM and... simplistic. The very comparison you make with the Palestinian situation should make you dispense with that madness.

    When and where has Malcolm X philosophy manifested itself in "terrorism" or specific acts of violence attributable to him?
    How can you call it a tactic (and imply that he employed it) if such acts were never advocated or organized to acheive some end?

    Frankly, what evidence is there that there was some specific ideology he held to target, violently, anything or anyone to acheive a political end?

    I'm surprised that you hold an idea that has no basis and is promoted by our enemy.

    How can you make a comparison when there are no actual equivalence? It seems that you have blindly accepted how people have characterized and attributed things to Malcolm X as opposed to what he clearly stood for that contradicts that characterization.

    Would you accept the conservative characterization of MLK's Content Of Character as being antithetical to affirmative action? I doubt that. I think from what you know you would differ and more importantly you would be inclined to research and come to your own determination as to whether their idea is based on sound judgement. Why not with Malcolm X?

    I think you have to seriously deal with these issues and your uninformed, IMO, pre-conceived notions about Malcolm X and whatever issues you have with his philosophy. I'm saying that I don't think you really have objectively examined what he believed and have settle for what others say he believed. The whole violence thing is indicative of that, IMO.

    To equate "By any means necessary" to violence is fallacious. Looking at it objectively, no one can honestly say X advocated any one certain tactic. That is to defy the understanding of the language of the phrase. The English is plain and straight forward. Any means... any or a number of different ones if "needed". That would include non-violence but it would not be limited to it - i.e. no set position on violence or non-violence.

    The fact is that he did not and would not rule out violence and more precisely self-defense. Not retaliation not targeted "terrorism".... self-defense, MBM. What is up with the misleading idea of "violence"?

    Did he say we are going to start a Nat Turner type rebellion until our demands are met?

    C'mon, MBM.
    Was the opposition to slavery adjusted to and based on the idea of what's "likely to succeed"? Confused

    I think on a fundamental level in this discussion about our plight that idea is completely absurd. I can't even fashion a question to ask about what "tactics" would have or were most effective in forwarding the abolition of slavery. Do you think non-violence achieved that? Do you think our enslaved ancestors particularly the first captive wanted "equality" or freedom and should have unconditionally employed non-volence?

    When they got off the boat, seriously... what do you think they thought and should have done? When they got sold on the auction block?

    What tactic would you have suggested they use then?
    How would you suggest they determine what tactic would be effective?
    ...Some arbitrary notion of what's "likely to be succeessful"?

    Let's see... if you're child is being "bullied" physically or otherwise you would what? Unconditionally advocate non-violence? Unconditionally?? Non-violence would be the most effective tactic right? It would make the bully never, ever disrespect you/your child again right? in any way shape or form right?

    And really what lasting "sympathy" do you think anyone would have for the non-violent guy once the bully relinguish his physical affront yet still resorts to other disrespectful methods - verbal teasing, berating him verbally when speaking to others etc.

    ______________________________________________________________
    There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
    Facts can obscure truth.
    - Maya Angelou

    MLK achieved tangible results.

    Malcolm philosophized and waxed poetically but he was more of a boogie man than an actual threat to system. In fact, 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?

    MLK did not take us to the Promised Land, indeed he knew he would never live long enough to see it, but he at least laid the foundation. My biggest criticism of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of today is that they are stuck in the 60's; they have yet to move beyond agitation.

    In addition, I think instead of debating MLK vs. Malcolm X we ought to take a long look at W.E.B. Dubois vs. Booker T. Washington. That schism is far more relevant to our lives today.
    quote:
    In addition, I think instead of debating MLK vs. Malcolm X we ought to take a long look at W.E.B. Dubois vs. Booker T. Washington. That schism is far more relevant to our lives today.
    Would you explain that? What that schism is?

    I don't see either set as mutually exclusive.

    And do you really think it was "safe" for a Black man to preach anything anywhere in America that "threatened" White America?

    Perhaps this should move you beyond rhetoric:
    quote:
    In the late 1950s and 1960s, while Martin Luther King, Jr. rose to national prominence professing nonviolent direct action and interracial organizing, Malcolm X became a leader in the Nation of Islam advocating armed self-defense and the rejection of white allies. Upon leaving the Nation of Islam in 1964, however, Malcolm's ideology shifted to a unified, coalition-oriented struggle for black advancement. While King and Malcolm continued to be at odds over the role of nonviolence in the movement, Malcolm met with other civil rights organizations in the South and repeatedly tried to work with King. Although King and Malcolm X never worked together, Malcolm's ideology directly influenced the southern civil rights movement after his 1965 death with the emergence of Black Power...

    Malcolm X was particularly harsh in his criticisms of the nonviolent strategy to achieve civil rights reforms advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr. During a November 1963 address at the Northern Negro Grass Roots Leadership Conference in Detroit, Malcolm derided the notion that African Americans could achieve freedom nonviolently. "The only revolution in which the goal is loving your enemy is the Negro revolution," he announced. "Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in the way." Malcolm also charged that King and other leaders of the March on Washington had taken over the event, with the help of white liberals, in order to subvert its militancy. "And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising," he insisted...

    Despite his caustic criticisms of King, however, Malcolm nevertheless identified himself with the grass-roots leaders of the southern civil rights protest movement. Malcolm sought King's participation in public forums through letters, but King generally ignored these, relegating them to his secretary for reply. Malcolm's desire to move from rhetoric to political militancy led him to become increasingly dissatisfied with Elijah Muhammad's apolitical stance. As he later explained in his autobiography, "It could be heard increasingly in the Negro communities: 'Those Muslims talk tough, but they never do anything, unless somebody bothers Muslims.'"...

    Determined to unify African-Americans, Malcolm sought to strengthen his ties with the more militant factions of the civil rights movement. At a Cleveland symposium sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in April 1964, Malcolm delivered one of his most notable speeches, "The Ballot or the Bullet," in which he urged black people to "submerge their differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem, a common problem--a problem that will make you catch hell whether you're a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Muslim, or a nationalist."

    Although he continued to reject King's nonviolent, integrationist approach, he and King had a brief, cordial encounter on 26 March 1964, as King left a press conference at the U.S. Capitol. Soon thereafter, Malcolm wired King to offer his support of King's campaign in St. Augustine, Florida. Malcolm offered to organize "self-defense units" to give the Klan a "taste of their own medicine to demonstrate that the day of turning the other cheek to those brute beasts is long over." King declined the offer, calling Malcolm's suggestion "a grave error" and "an immoral approach." In early 1965, while King was jailed in Selma, Alabama, Malcolm met with Coretta Scott King. He told her he did not come to Selma to make things more difficult for King, explaining, "If white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."

    King Papers Project

    A Common Solution
    Now what did you expect for Malcolm X to do? Move to the South and "pick fights" with the Klan to prove his manhood?

    Let's be real. He traveled around the world, North, South, East and West "practicing what he preached"...

    I would like you to explain what Malcolm X "preached" as being not so "tangible" and why the hell we are posing one versus the other? King/X... Dubois/Washington?

    Why do we insist on Dividing And Conquering our own socio-political heritage?

    And what exactly do you advice Jesse and Al to move to besides "agitation"? What are the new menthods you see as being more effective, up-to-date, etc.?

    [This message was edited by Nmaginate on December 06, 2003 at 06:14 AM.]
    There's a lot to respond here. I'll come back to this as I can.

    First, I am not creating a schism, but merely noting that one exists and probing to determine its nature, depths, and connection to each's contributions. I posted a poll recently that asked who one would prefer meeting between MLK and Nelson Mandela. Yssys responded, essentially, neither. She preferred Malcolm X. That response got me thinking about the differences in perception between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. There has been quite a bit here posted enthusiastically praising MX, with IMO just a tepid and reverential memory of MLK. The whole point of this thread is to explore the nature of those feelings and to discuss those perceptions. IMO they both shared similar objectives. They just chose different strategies and tactics in fighting for the same thing. Further, because MLK chose a more "passive" approach, I wonder whether his current perception among many is "fair" when juxtaposed with the ultimate effectiveness of his efforts. Likewise, is MX's current equity generated more from his approach than from his ability to actually achieve his objectives? *

    Also, to be clear, I place no value judgment here, one way or the other, on the particular strategies or men. I just want to explore the differences and nuances of perceptions that exist between the two men. This isn't about building up one man at the expense of the other.

    Second, I ascribe nothing to MX's motives/activities other than what is popularly held about him and captured in his "by any means necessary" phraseology. To many, that phrase "captures" Malcolm, probably in similar ways that words like passive resistance, and non-violence, and Ghandi-esque "captures" Martin. I have never seen a picture of MLK peering out a window with a shotgun in his hand. I've never seen anything to suggest that somehow "by any means necessary" has been inappropriately stretched by popular consensus. There is certainly plenty of dialog from Malcolm himself that speaks to his willingness to confront violence with violence. Remember, it's as American as cherry pie! brosmile

    In any event, IMO, the preciseness of the perceptions is fairly irrelevant to this discussion. It is clear that MLK and MX chose different paths. With the benefit of 40 or so years perspective, we now have the opportunity to analyze both the effectiveness of the approaches, and which actually was more productive to black America. This, even after acknowledging the interconnectedness of the men and their movements.* I am intrigued with comparing answers to the above with how African America perceives each leader. That's the point here.

    * - It's like comparing the effectiveness of the run and passing games of an NFL team. Both are a part of the offense. They both share the same objective of scoring points. They are different tactics, however. MLK was Doug Williams. A great quarterback with a ridiculously strong arm. Hence, he threw the ball. MX was Jim Brown - one of the best runners ever. He combined strength and speed in a way that dominated his opponents. Both Doug and Jim wanted to score touchdowns. All I'm suggesting is a conversation about the relative perception of the two.


    There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
    that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela


    [This message was edited by MBM on December 06, 2003 at 09:41 AM.]
    I think that nonviolence itself sometimes gets a bad rap. There is a big difference between pacifism and passivism.

    There is a misconception that nonviolence is inheriently less forceful or less confrontational than violence. There is also a misconception that nonviolence relies on pursuasion, and the good will of your opponent. In part this stems from the public rhetoric that often surrounds nonviolence. Lots of flowery talk about loving your enemy and changing minds etc, when in reality, the private talk is about planning, logistics, tactics, and strategy, and how best to force change. I seriously doubt that anybody involved in strong nonviolent action is feeling much love for their opponent while being oppressed and/or beaten.

    I think that both violence and nonviolence rely on coercion. The goal (assuming that it is practiced in a desciplined and forceful manner) is to create facts that make it in the opponent's best interest to change. Nonviolent action, like violent action, can be timid or it can be forceful.

    Unfortunately, one of the common results of the use of violence is to make it difficult for your opponent to think rationally. People who are in fear for their physical safety often do not behave in their own self interest.

    While both violence and nonviolence can be capable of creating sufficient pressure and conditions so as to make it in your opponent's own self interest to alter their behavior, that in and of itself is not enough to force change. Not only must enough pressure be applied to make it in your opponent's own self interest to allow change, but your opponent must be in a mental and emotional position to be able to recognize their own self interest. People in fear for their physical safety often are not.


    Plowshares Actions
    The Nuclear Resister
    School of the Americas Watch


    Cauca, Colombia

    [This message was edited by ricardomath on December 06, 2003 at 03:56 PM.]
    MLK and Malcolm both served a purpose and they both contributed to who we are today, however, if we are going to ask if Martin gets a bad rap we need only to look at the end result of his works and what it has produced, meaning our present day condition.

    I would have to say he does not get a bad rap, based on the thinking of today and looking at the end result of his work. I think MLK passive approach was appreciated more by white folk because it was none threatening and made white folk sympathetic to our cause and allowed Jews to infiltrate our struggle to serve their own agenda. Our present day condition as a whole probably has more to do with MLK's non-violence stance than Malcolm more militant stance. Thus we truly do not know the end result of what Malcolm's more militant and self determination stance would have produced. However, we can look at what the end result of the things MLK sought after have produced. He sought integration that has been a failure and triggered the systematic destruction of Black businesses and black schools. Integration also removed Black men and women from our community that could be examples to those coming behind them and left a vacuum that has been filled by black men and women that are self destructive.

    Somehow those in the civil rights movement under MLK began to think integration was about forcing white folk to allow us to go to school with them, eat next to them and do all sorts of other things with them. The thing that sparked this movement was not so much that we could not do things with white folk, it was that the resources we had available to us was sub par. Malcolm fought to make black men and women independent of white folk and MLK fight may have not been to make black folk dependent on white folk but the end result of his fight has produced a dependency on them to be fair with us and this has not happen yet.

    So in my assessment MLK is giving more credit for things that are considered good and not blamed for the harmful side affects of his movement. Who knows what the end result of Malcolm's fight would have been or the side affects but I personally believe it could not have been worse than our present day condition of dependency, self destructive behavior, and hatred of self.

    Lastly, because of our present day condition I believe as Solomonic has opined, The schism of Booker T. Washington versus W.E.B. Dubois is far more relevant today than MLK versus Malcolm.

    -------------------------
    "We got to organize ourselves, We got to mobilize and there can't be no confusion in our collective solution, If not for ourselves, then for our kids, because we know who our enemy is!"

    DPZ "for the hood"

    More to come later!

    Your Brother Faheem
    quote:
    * - It's like comparing the effectiveness of the run and passing games of an NFL team. Both are a part of the offense. They both share the same objective of scoring points. They are different tactics, however. MLK was Doug Williams. A great quarterback with a ridiculously strong arm. Hence, he threw the ball. MX was Jim Brown - one of the best runners ever. He combined strength and speed in a way that dominated his opponents. Both Doug and Jim wanted to score touchdowns. All I'm suggesting is a conversation about the relative perception of the two.

    Besides drifting back into the conflicting ideas of [1] saying both a good passing game (MLK) and a good running game (MX) are a part of [one good] offense and then [2] trying to separate the two by "comparing" them which seems to imply that they were on separate teams (**Note: I never heard of a team say the Kansas City Chiefs "comparing" their running game and passing game in an abstraction and trying to say in more or less absolute terms which one was more effective as if to say which is the best method to maintain and try to the exclusion of the other)...

    I challenge this idea of accepting the "popular" notions because I challenge whether the "popular" version can adequately "capture" the essence of either whether it "popular" from an African-American perspective or general American perspective - and I think the "popular" conception is way too influenced by the conception of or reaction to [White] American perspectives.

    I think the popular notions especially the way you described it are based on emotions and not a necessarily a thorough rational examination of either. To the extent that you characterized MX as "violent" that characterization is gross over exaggerated and based on emotions, not rational thought and sorely lacks context.... context.

    QUESTION:
    Did you see ROSEWOOD?
    Do you remember the scene when the Klan was coming to burn down the families house?

    Would you favor the family in that situation to not be "violent" and drop their shotguns when their life, family, home, and fortunes where threatened?

    Seriously MBM... your bias based on "popular" conceptions and more heavily your repulsion of it (when it doesn't favor your preference for MLK) is so apparent. You have to own that.

    I've been clear. I don't prefer to choose either. But if I have to make a choice, I too would choose MX because he didn't have a rigid, absolutist position. He had one that I see a capable of evolving.

    And more importantly, you cannot avoid the question of whether MLK or whoever achieved "freedom" and deal with that paradox of why we are still today fighting some of the same battles.

    You have to answer and not avoid whether it was FREEDOM or EQUALITY that was the objective(s). You have to define exactly what that means and then tell me whether either were achieved.

    I resent your emotional... YOUR emotional characterization of MX. And with Ricardo's observation, your characterization or offering of what MLK stood for. How is it that (I'm sure) you reject the "popular" characterization of MLK as "passive" - aka whimpy compromiser - yet you accept the (unruly) "violent" one of MX shows your bias.

    MBM, I don't choose on my own. Either they were part of the same team or they were not. Your choose one or the other pits one against the other. Call it intersquad game or whatever but that's what your exploration here does. Pits one against the other. One without the other, if... IF you are calling them the same team in the same game against a common enemy is a false evaluation.

    To be frank, and going along with the football analogy, OUR TEAM is playing a season not one single game. And we may in fact be playing against the same rival team - home field or away. But you cannot say or predict that in every game and in every quarter that either the running game or the passing game will be and were "more productive" than the other because they both rely on each other or "balanced attack" in order to keep the opponent off balanced.

    You want us to participate, IMO, in our own Divide and Conquer.

    Okay, Mike Marks... You gonna fall in love and pass the ball because you've had so much "success" with that or are you gonna come to your senses and realize Marshall... Marshall... Marshall... is another potent weapon that makes your passing game even more potent?

    ______________________________________________________________
    There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
    Facts can obscure truth.
    - Maya Angelou

    quote:
    Lastly, because of our present day condition I believe as Solomonic has opined, The schism of Booker T. Washington versus W.E.B. Dubois is far more relevant today than MLK versus Malcolm.

    Brother FAHEEM,

    Could you elaborate on that schism? What makes it more relevant?

    I'm sorry but I don't or refuse to arbitrarily, IMO, rank or prioritize like that... I see both schisms or pursuing both paths as dual responsibilities and as mutually inclusive not exclusive.

    Please explain...
    I am a bit short on time here but later tonight if I have the time and will power to go deeper into this two schism and their relevance to today I will but for now I will say the crutch of Malcolm and MLK debate is rooted in religion and upward mobility of the black man and woman from those perspective. W.E.B. Dubois and Booker T. Washington schism is more rooted in the action of Black men and women outside the realm of religion and doing things for ourselves based on that. Dubois espoused his philosophy of the talented tenth which I made a post about some time ago and Booker T. Washington while not necessarily opposing that philosophy leaned more towards working with white folks.

    This is what we have today, Black men and women are more divided alone the lines of Washington and Dubois than we are MLK and Malcolm and this is what make the schism between those two men more relevant today. This of course is short and sweet and hopefully I will have the time and will to go deeper later. Lastly, the focus on Malcolm and MLK is so great because very few know anything about Dubois and Washington

    -------------------------
    "We got to organize ourselves, We got to mobilize and there can't be no confusion in our collective solution, If not for ourselves, then for our kids, because we know who our enemy is!"

    DPZ "for the hood"

    More to come later!

    Your Brother Faheem
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    Besides drifting back into the conflicting ideas of [1] saying both a good passing game (MLK) and a good running game (MX) are a part of [one good] offense and then [2] trying to separate the two by "comparing" them which seems to imply that they were on separate teams (**Note: I never heard of a team say the Kansas City Chiefs "comparing" their running game and passing game in an abstraction and trying to say in more or less absolute terms which one was more effective as if to say which is the best method to maintain and try to the exclusion of the other)...


    Friend, in business people talk all day, everyday, comparing and contrasting different business strategies. Go to a library or bookstore; there are thousands of titles on how and why different companies did their thing in different ways? The objective of business is to maximize shareholder wealth. There are an almost infinite number of strategies and tactics to do that however. Same with military strategy. The objective is to secure military victory. Ever read Clausewitz or Sun Tzu regarding strategy and tactics?

    Why is it so difficult to consider that the two had different approaches, but similar objectives? Why is it so problematic to see that people embrace both men, but do so differently? Why is it troubling to attempt to dissect the cause and nature of those differences in perception? In looking at perception, isn't it reasonable to look at how the men thought, what they believed, and also what they accomplished?

    quote:
    I challenge this idea of accepting the "popular" notions because I challenge whether the "popular" version can adequately "capture" the essence of either whether it "popular" from an African-American perspective or general American perspective - and I think the "popular" conception is way too influenced by the conception of or reaction to [White] American perspectives.


    Cool. Perhaps this conversation isn't for you then. brosmile Without regard to how they are derived, there are popular conceptions of each man. You may not like it how they were created, but popular opinion exists nevertheless.

    quote:
    I think the popular notions especially the way you described it are based on emotions and not a necessarily a thorough rational examination of either.


    You're arguing a completely separate point here. I am not analyzing the physiology of popular opinion. Just acknowledging that it exists around Martin and Malcolm and trying to understand it in this case. Whether popular opinion meets your personal threshold for logic does not obviate the fact that it exists.

    quote:
    QUESTION:
    Did you see ROSEWOOD?
    Do you remember the scene when the Klan was coming to burn down the families house?

    Would you favor the family in that situation to not be "violent" and drop their shotguns when their life, family, home, and fortunes where threatened?


    Strategy is a decision to proceed down a particular path that one thinks will most effectively and efficiently achieve one's ultimate objectives? Absent evidence to shift strategies, one commits to a path and executes it.

    quote:
    Seriously MBM... your bias based on "popular" conceptions and more heavily your repulsion of it (when it doesn't favor your preference for MLK) is so apparent. You have to own that.


    You sound like Bankins trying to tell me what I think and believe! brosmile I have no bias here - despite your remonstrance to the contrary. I've asked a question to promote dialog. Just because you disagree with the premise of the question doesn't by definition mean that I have to fall on the side of the argument that you disagree with.

    quote:
    I've been clear. I don't prefer to choose either.


    Great, but to be equally clear, no one has asked you to do that. Perhaps you do not see a difference in perception between the two men. This thread isn't directed to you then.

    quote:
    But if I have to make a choice, I too would choose MX because he didn't have a rigid, absolutist position. He had one that I see a capable of evolving.


    Why do you deny MLK the same opportunity to be thoughtful and analytical that you give MX? (The right to adjust strategies according to the ebb and flow of the fight?)

    quote:
    And more importantly, you cannot avoid the question of whether MLK or whoever achieved "freedom" and deal with that paradox of why we are still today fighting some of the same battles.


    I HAVE NOWHERE SUGGESTED THAT WE ARE IN NIRVANA. We are talking about incremental gains toward the ultimate objective. (Do you remember who you're talking to here? This ain't sergeant! brosmile)

    quote:
    You have to answer and not avoid whether it was FREEDOM or EQUALITY that was the objective(s). You have to define exactly what that means and then tell me whether either were achieved.


    NMag - I'm going to start calling you the 'Semantic Man'! brosmile thumbsup

    Both freedom and equality were objectives. There were incremental gains in both.

    quote:
    I resent your emotional... YOUR emotional characterization of MX.


    I hope in rereading your words that you can see the stark irony laced throughout them! brosmile Bruh, I have not characterized either except by the general perceptions that exist about them. I have been careful to clearly articulate that I have placed NO VALUE JUDGMENTS on either man or approach. All I have done is acknowledge that there is a difference in approach and perception, and attempt to analyze each. PERIOD.

    quote:
    And with Ricardo's observation, your characterization or offering of what MLK stood for. How is it that (I'm sure) you reject the "popular" characterization of MLK as "passive" - aka whimpy compromiser - yet you accept the (unruly) "violent" one of MX shows your bias.


    Actually your response gets precisely to an element of this issue that I am curious about. I sense people focusing more on nuance than on strategy. I can 't say any better than has already been said, passive resistance is not passivity. It is a strategy to overcome a more powerful foe. If you are Roy Jones getting ready to fight Mike Tyson - the smart, strategic approach would be to BOX Tyson (dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee!) as opposed to stand there a trade with him.

    quote:
    MBM, I don't choose on my own. Either they were part of the same team or they were not. Your choose one or the other pits one against the other.


    I have merely noted the distinctions that others make, and seek to better understand it. You're reading some effort on my part to force you to make a choice THAT IS NOT THERE.

    quote:
    IF you are calling them the same team in the same game against a common enemy is a false evaluation.


    They chose different strategies. PERIOD. What is false about that "evaluation"?

    quote:
    To be frank, and going along with the football analogy, OUR TEAM is playing a season not one single game. And we may in fact be playing against the same rival team - home field or away. But you cannot say or predict that in every game and in every quarter that either the running game or the passing game will be and were "more productive" than the other because they both rely on each other or "balanced attack" in order to keep the opponent off balanced.


    Actually I agree. I said the same much earlier in this thread - and probably in others as well. It is the fact that others make distinctions that seem to more heavily distribute their respect to MX that is the core of my curiosity on this point.

    quote:
    You want us to participate, IMO, in our own Divide and Conquer.


    Respectfully and affectionately - bullshit! brosmile You know that is not the point of this thread. I've not said anything to reasonably infer anything of the kind.


    There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
    that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela


    [This message was edited by MBM on December 06, 2003 at 02:59 PM.]
    MBM,

    Own your bias. You ask me why I don't acknowledge MLK's evolution (you could elaborate on that and the "popular" opinion that he was moving towards Malcolm and vice versa) calling it explicitly or not my bias but won't acknowledge the same essential bias of your own.

    Are we talking about BUSINESS models or FOOTBALL now?

    Don't abandon your analogy when the holes - i.e. the conflicting, short-sighted, snap-shot photo perspective - of it are exposed.

    I fully respect you and MLK. You should tell the truth. You prefer MLK for your reasons which are valid but seriously what is the relevance TODAY, MBM.

    Don't get offended because I challenge your notions. It's not out of disrespect, thread high-jacking or any of that.

    Own your bias.
    quote:
    Actually I agree. I said the same much earlier in this thread - and probably in others as well. It is the fact that others make distinctions that seem to more heavily distribute their respect to MX that is the core of my curiosity on this point.

    IF all you have is mature and dispassionate curiosity then, I don't see why - even if you want to characterize my contentions as passion laden - you can't and don't see my observations as helpful to those ends.

    What's the problem?

    I'm sure what I said... which FAHEEM says as well... is very explicit why Malcolm X has esteem. Deep down, based on your bias (and we all have one) you really do not accept that, otherwise your curiosity would not be there.

    Business model of success or not, no one is curious why a seemingly "unsuccessful" model is favored over a "successful" one if they truly understand the former.

    Two terms:
    SHORT-TERM and LONG-TERM.

    Now, the BULLSHIT is acting like what I said is irrelevant. It is at least explanatory... which I thought was the focus of your "curious" exploration.

    Own your bias. You favor MLK ultimately because, in your mind he "succeeded"...

    EQUALITY or FREEDOM, MBM???
    What really then is the "measure of success"?

    Add Reply

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