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"?
    quote:
    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.
    MBM, "Passive" was your "popular" conception term. Admittedly I added "whimpy" to further characterize the "popular" conception but that's not at all what I think of it.

    I said I DON'T CHOOSE or feel the need to. I see them both as equally necessary and inseparable imperative.

    What don't you understand about that? winkgrin I've only said like 1000 times now!
    quote:
    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!
    I'm not sure if Malcolm himself said that. I'm sure H. Rap Brown did it.

    What don't you understand about self-defense?
    I acknowledge that sometimes you have to "choose your battles" but... I really don't believe you would ABSOLUTELY tell your son to return a bully's violent aggression solely with non-violent passive resistance.

    Would you? Seriously... would you?
    (((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))

    Now about semantics... seriously...
    Now, you know unless you are a CHESTERITE Big Grin (no offense, JWC) that establishing "working definitions" about terms that are central to the discussion are your forte.

    I've read some of your posts and you've said that... I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID LAST SUMMER! brosmile (in your posts).

    Please don't offer something up for discussion then say they are irrelevant later on... I hope you know you would label that as problematic if some one else did that with you.

    I love and esteem BOTH MLK and MX the same. That's what I evolved to. I started and was firmly set on MLK, then I turned to MX, now I appreciate them all the more and I am a purist on them BOTH.

    If you want to play the "I've said that here and elsewhere game" then check my post, search my name and MLK... I can retrieve threads full from other forums. But you and I both know that isn't the point.

    Simply, my contention is to stop at "popular" conceptions is to dwell and pale cliches and not substance or the essence of either. Plain and simple.

    I love you brother, this forum and this dialogue.

    Peace!
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    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.



    Dude, read my posts, please. I've not said anything in any way to suggest that you have "bias". C'mon!

    quote:
    Are we talking about BUSINESS models or FOOTBALL now?


    Strategy applies to any endeavor.

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


    LOL! Big Grin I really wish you'd take a deep breath and READ. You're WAY off base.

    quote:
    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.


    I'm really not sure at how we got to where we are on this! brofrown

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


    Great, then I hope you'll read my words in the same light. Why does this question bother you so? brosmile

    quote:
    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.


    Because you're arguing a completely separate point. I'm sorry I can' make you see that.

    quote:
    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.


    Can you please reread the question at the start of this thread? Do you see that I acknowledge Malcolm's esteem and characterize it as well-earned. Nowhere have I said anything to disrespect his legacy. If anything I'm asking if Martin gets his just due. BTW - MLK and MX are not subject to a 'zero sum' dynamci of "love" from us. More love for one doesn't mean less for the other.

    quote:
    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.


    What is your opinion about the relative contributions and achievements of MLK's movement and Malcolm's?

    quote:
    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.


    Huh? Confused You lost me.

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


    Yes daddy! thumbsup Roll Eyes

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


    I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion, but since you ask, how do you differentiate and define the two? Can you have freedom without equality? Of what value is freedom without equality? If one is free to live in their cocoon bound by discrimination, what's the point and value of that "freedom"? So, where are you going with this? What does this have to do with this topic?


    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
    quote:
    I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion, but since you ask, how do you differentiate and define the two?
    MBM, I asked you to define those terms. You have used them and carelessly interchanged them, IMO, without defining either.

    SIMILAR OBJECTIVES? TO hairsplit, can you really say similar is the same? and then judge both MLK and MX if the objectives were merely similar but perhaps not completely the same?

    Please. I asked you to define those terms. I would think you could at least do that.

    As far as reading what you've said, I could not have made one comment without doing so. You are quibbling because I don't agree with your characterizations and your "lukewarm" esteem of MX.

    That's my point here, defending the esteem of MX and trying to provide you with the context. I have not berated MLK while doing so. If I have please point that out. And while you're at it, please point out what I "haven't read".

    Own your bias and lukewarm treatment. That's all. Now, don't quibble over terms if you want to take issue with me and my "semanticals"...
    quote:
    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?)

    Is that not saying that I have a bias or some type of limiting perspective concerning either a positive for MX or a negative for MLK?

    Before that... did I say anything that could be (mis)construed as a negative towards MLK? Be honest and READ my post.

    SHORT-TERM and LONG TERM is providing a sense of context. Short-term = MLK; Long-Term = MX (IMO) If you feel that's giving MLK less than his due then I can own that bias. However, I will not devalue the necessity of short-term solutions, nor have I suggested anything to that effect. READ MY POST (do you want me to dig out one that sounds more favorable to you... I've got one!)

    I know you understand Short-Term and Long-Term and I know you understand how maybe some unanticipated and perhaps ignored known or unknown consequences.

    Now, not being a business person per se, I will venture to say that companies evaluate strategies both in terms of pass performance of certain models or methods yet, in order to be on the cutting edge and stay "competitive", have to anticipate the coming trends and/or see exactly how long the "effectiveness" of a particular strategy will last and ultimately whether the initial strategy chosen got them where they want to be and if it will have optimum yields.

    In that process, they cannot "lose sight" of what the ultimate goal is and may even have to re-define their goals and/or make sure nothing has been lost in the translation of the principles into practice.

    That's why I've asked you to define FREEDOM and EQUALITY... and you can elaborate on their relationship and intertwine-ness.

    Thank you.

    Is this a team or what? If you agree with the football analogy as I expanded on it, what don't you understand about my perspective?

    Own your bias, MBM. That's not a bad thing, MBM. It's honesty. You want it from me and whether you use that term or not you think I have one along with Yssys or anyone who values MX.

    Frankly, I would have you refer to FAHEEM's post again and I'll answer that MLK does not get a bad rap for me and IMO hardly gets it from others. If you took a poll of ALL African-Americans who do you think would win? MLK or Malcolm X?

    What relevance do you think the "popular" conceptions of them would have?

    I'm sure MLK would win... but... (in MBMite fashion)
    WHAT DO YOU THINK? Smile
    quote:
    Can you have freedom without equality?
    Define the terms, MBM. Please!!

    In a sense, FREEDOM goes beyond "equality"...
      In his book, "Why We Can't Wait", he wrote,
      "Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted **equality**, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner."
    I know you are familiar with that. BUT... Since you are perplexed by my treatment... Would you answer this quandry?
    What did Dr. King mean by saying, in essence, "equality" is not enough? Was that him angling for something more. Something closer to "absolute" freedom. When you talk about "equality" you know you are talking essentially about a relative term right?
    Relative to whom on relative on what basis? mere "legal" equality? Does that equate to "freedom"?

    If you have a problem with FREEDOM *or* EQUALITY, how is it that you can't understand my issue with MLK *or* MX?

    I was only going by what I believe to be the "popular" conception of those terms. And they or rather their actual conception in the minds of those equally great men, IMO, are central to the philosophies/strategies of both MLK and MX.

    Sorry but you can't evaluate either MLK or MX with really examining how they might have actually concieved those concepts differently and answer whether that accounts for the different stances and different results.

    One more question: (you will wonder if this is relevant too)
    On principle, do you compromise with a terrorist?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    Sorry but you can't evaluate either MLK or MX with really examining how they might have actually concieved those concepts differently and answer whether that accounts for the different stances and different results.


    I believe that they both were fighting for EXACTLY the same thing: black liberation. Further, I ascribe no meaning to the words "equality" and "freedom" outside of their generally accepted uses.

    OK, now what? Is the point of this line of questioning that you are making the distinction that MX was fighting for "separate but equal" whereas MLK was fighting for just "equal"?

    quote:
    One more question: (you will wonder if this is relevant too)
    On principle, do you compromise with a terrorist?


    It depends on what your objective is. If your objective is to bring home your daughter who has been taken captive, then yes - at all costs you negotiate. If your objective is to deter future terror for a nation, then perhaps no. There are no "right" and "wrong" strategies outside of context. Strategy can only be evaluated/compared against a common objective and context.

    Nmag - that's a key point of this thread. You can't evaluate strategies and tactics without understanding the objectives that drive them. IF MLK and MX shared the same objective (we can debate that particular question as well if you like) then it should be easy to evaluate the relative merits of each strategy against the shared objective.

    So, are they on the same team or not?


    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
    quote:
    Originally posted by Faheem:

    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.


    Could you elaborate on the "harmful side effects"? How is this argument different from our conservative friends who love to say that black folks got "addicted" to the CRM? Could whatever shortcomings you ascribe to King's efforts really be vestiges of other societal/social issues that negatively impact us?

    quote:
    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.


    So, these you blame on King? If so, how? Also, this issue becomes more complex because MX's objectives and strategies may have shifted in his last years as he distanced himself from the NOI. Which Malcolm do you refer to?

    BTW - for a probable government response to black militance one can look to the history of Denmark Vesey.

    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
    quote:
    OK, now what? Is the point of this line of questioning that you are making the distinction that MX was fighting for "separate but equal" whereas MLK was fighting for just "equal"?
    HUH? SEPARATE but equal?? HUH??

    Is this some more of your [biased] "popular" conception stuff?
    quote:
    So, are they on the same team or not?
    That's what I'm asking you? The common or popular conception of people on the same team is not to ask who is more effective per se as if they are in competition. In any sport (where has your football analogy went?) TEAMMATES are not assessed by that measure in terms of one being chosen over the other. They are acknowledge and equally accepted for their roles, however different they may be.

    HaHaHa!
    I've been asking you that question all along and your strategy assessment squares with the "team" concept. Now, you want to turn that around on me??

    Big Grin I have never said or suggested they were not on the same team nor have I made a fallacious, false positive argument that one is greater than the other. They both have/had their roles. That's how I see it. That's why I feel no need to choose.

    Are you going to spend all day avoid my questions besides those that elicit responses like this:
    quote:
    I believe that they both were fighting for EXACTLY the same thing: black liberation. Further, I ascribe no meaning to the words "equality" and "freedom" outside of their generally accepted uses.
    After all that you still never defined anything. How am I to know exactly what the "generally accepted uses" are to you? We've already quarrled over the generally accepted yet mischaracterized conception or reduction of MX's beliefs to simple "violence"...

    ON terrorism... Which item you offered best depicts the American terrorism that was being fought in MLK's Era? Where we held hostage or trying to deter future terrorism?

    HINT: I would characterize MLK as the "hostage" negoiation, I guess. The issue I take is that it did not "deter" future terrorism in terms of what we continue to deal with today... (do I need to elaborate)

    Do you suggest we continue on the "negoiation" front at the expense of maybe not doing enough in terms of "deterence"?

    I only wanted to focus on the terms (and really was giving you a hint...) because it is a major ASSUMPTION to believe that there was a generally accepted idea or definition as to what BLACK LIBERATION... hmmm... FREEDOM & EQUALITY meant to either of them.

    To my recollection ONLY Malcolm X made overtures and actually said:
    DR KING WANTS THE SAME THING I WANT. FREEDOM!

    The links I listed in response to Solomonic (I believe) shows that MX was the one who, not unlike yourself, strove to understand and support MLK. for what's that's worth...

    Reconcile that...
    And what about the King quote? Is this an avoidance on your part or what? What did he mean?

    I HAVE TO ASK:
    Generally accepted amongst who? The general public that would no doubt favor MLK? That kind of generally accepted? ...Or can we (you) finally define these terms no matter how "generally" you define them? I.E. what do those terms mean to YOU???????

    [This message was edited by Nmaginate on December 06, 2003 at 05:57 PM.]
    quote:
    Which Malcolm do you refer to?
    That would be a better question for you to answer, MBM.

    BLACK MILITANCE... U.S. gov't response? What's the response to the "sons" of King today? (Jesse and Al)

    C'mon, MBM. Look at the REALITY now.

    Why won't you own your bias?

    Can you not see that using that measure of what the societal rewards - aka "probable government response" - for "black miltance" and then question the idea of why King gets a bad rap because his strategy is perceived as "White accomodation"... is to answer the question yourself and engage in the very practice you feel is mis-perceived as such.

    So, are we to only choose methods that White folk like and "compromise" with terrorism or have at least some principles that are categorically not up to discussion, alteration, adjustment or COMPROMISE?

    It's not about what they will do! It's not about VIOLENCE! It's about UNCOMPROSING PRINCIPLE!

    You quote Mandela... why do you consult what he has to say on non-violence? I offered his ideas about it and Ghandi... Why have you seemingly ignored that? Would you call Mandela's strategy "in effective" or less productive?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    In any sport (where has your football analogy went?) TEAMMATES are not assessed by that measure in terms of one being chosen over the other. They are acknowledge and equally accepted for their roles, however different they may be.


    BULLSHIT. In sports, achievement is sliced and diced in multiplicative fashion with every aspect of performance charted, tracked, and monitored. Please.

    Perhaps I've slipped into Russian in this thread. I apologize. That probably accounts for the dissonance between us. About 30 times I have said that I am not choosing anything. You yourself have acknowledged a difference in perception between the two men. Shit, they are two separate people. How could they be perceived in exactly equal ways? I'm sorry you can't entertain the question seeking to analyze the source of those differences.

    Without regard to the precise contributions of both men, they each participated in the same arena. Who cares about all of the bullshit you raise to obfuscate and confuse? WHATEVER . . . Roll Eyes

    quote:
    Big Grin I have never said or suggested they were not on the same team nor have I made a fallacious, false positive argument that one is greater than the other. They both have/had their roles. That's how I see it. That's why I feel no need to choose.


    Are you hallucinating? brosmile Who asked you to choose? Who accused you of anything? Are you just feeling guilty or something? Why can't you get this? Confused

    You yourself said that if pressed you would choose MX. Again, for the umpteenth time, the purpose of this thread is to explore the basis of that preference. Period! NOT to question or challenge it or to place any value judgment on it whatsoever. What is so difficult about that? Why does that stress you so?

    quote:
    After all that you still never defined anything.


    You know, I think you really do hate to debate issues, you just LOVE the intellectual masturbation of semantics. You don't want to get anywhere with issues, you just want to wrap people in your web of confusion. Whatever Nmag! Go on with your rants.

    quote:
    How am I to know exactly what the "generally accepted uses" are to you? We've already quarrled over the generally accepted yet mischaracterized conception or reduction of MX's beliefs to simple "violence"...


    See above -

    BTW - YOU suggested MX's approach was violent. I said "militant". Semantic Man - should we take a few pages here to debate, compare, contrast, and discuss the etymology of those words? Roll Eyes

    quote:
    ON terrorism... Which item you offered best depicts the American terrorism that was being fought in MLK's Era? Where we held hostage or trying to deter future terrorism?


    Who cares? What does this have to do with this topic? If you'd like to open a new thread with that as the discussion topic, please do.

    quote:
    HINT: I would characterize MLK as the "hostage" negoiation, I guess. The issue I take is that it did not "deter" future terrorism in terms of what we continue to deal with today... (do I need to elaborate)


    But how can we expect to proceed if we've not using established and precise definitions of all of the words used to create a premise or to argue it? Roll Eyes Please!

    To the point though, so what? What did Malcolm's approach accomplish vis-a-vis today? Could you compare and contrast the contributions of MX and MLK to current black America? Oh, sorry, I've already asked you that a few times already. You must just be thinking about your answer right? Or maybe you're just going through your Webster's to make sure that your definitions are precise! Roll Eyes

    quote:
    I only wanted to focus on the terms (and really was giving you a hint...) because it is a major ASSUMPTION to believe that there was a generally accepted idea or definition as to what BLACK LIBERATION... hmmm... FREEDOM & EQUALITY meant to either of them.


    Whatever . . . Answer the question about their relative contributions to current black America.

    quote:

    And what about the King quote? Is this an avoidance on your part or what? What did he mean?


    Who cares? I'm not interested in your 'side trip' debating meaning and nuance. Start your own thread regarding that topic.


    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
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    Would you call Mandela's strategy "in effective" or less productive?


    Are we in SA? Are the conditions that we fight under the same as in SA? Are we in the vast majority here? Is our government surrounded by black people and governments supportive of our liberation?

    This is the entire point. We're discussing strategy and tactics. The only principle at hand should be a commitment to achieve our objective. Based upon his context, Mandela chose tactics that he thought had the best opportunity for success. He was right. They achieved their freedom and Mandela was elected president. Our context was/is entirely different and therefore requires a strategy and set of tactics that are precisely developed for it.

    Do you understand that now? Comparing Mandela's approach to those used here is irrelevant and nonsensical. It has NOTHING to do with it.

    ON THE OTHER HAND, comparing two people/movements who operated under the same context and during the same time and for the same objectives - is entirely appropriate.


    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
    I'm done MBM...

    Take off all the things that let you get offended and please accept and consider what I had to say or extract whatever is there that addressed your curiosity... There was some there.

    I've definitely addressed what I think gives MX esteem...

    And to your point who would ever deny MLK's contribution. I said I feel no reason to choose and therefore do not devalue or take away from MLK. SO YES!! (since you must here it... when you say "so what?" to my questions... hmmm...)

    MLK's strategy can be attributed to what we have today... I'm still trying to see how that squares with what you said... "AT THE END OF THE DAY!!"

    Now what about TOMORROW??
    .... insert that old Winans cd w/ song by that title...

    and.....
    PEACE bruh! Smile
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    Now what about TOMORROW??



    Tomorrow is a different day and requires a different strategy developed precisely for it!

    It's been fun! You're the best! thumbsup


    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
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    (Hey I've found a Afro-Bro smilie with Thumbs up somewhere.... what do I need to do for you to add it if you like?)




    Just post it and I can grab it. That would be great! The more the merrier!


    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
    MBM, you are correct in pointing out that what I said is what the conservatives say, but you should also be mindful that I am no fool and I can understand the duality of all problems. I personally disagree with Negro Conservatives not because they are wrong but because they give a free pass to white folk and see Black men and women as the creators of our own problems and do not see the shared responsibility in correcting the problems that we face. We have both external and internal ills, which translate into ills that were the doing of our own and those that were the cause of other people mainly white people.

    Now to explain what I mean when I speak about the harmful affects of MLK and his CRM, it is no secret that MLK did not teach black men and women to do for self. MLK main goal was to get white folk to acknowledge us as their equals instead of proving we were their equals. MLK an educated man himself was not teaching what Malcolm and the NOI was teaching. To be down with MLK you were not required to have any form of self discipline, you were not made or taught to give up certain foods, behaviors and so on, you could fornicate and behave in any kind of way you wanted to and be part of the CRM. On the other hand to be with Malcolm and the NOI, you were required to have discipline, you were required to study and learn, you were required to give up certain food, there was no drinking of alcoholic beverages and there was no smoking. Many black men and women will tell you strait up, that they could not be a Muslim because they have to give up certain things that they know are harmful to them and their body but being a Christian require no such thing.

    Malcolm taught that which was taught to him by The Honorable Elijah Muhammad. MLK whole mission was about making white people do something and required absolutely nothing of Black men and women. Malcolm teachings as taught to him by Mr. Muhammad required more from us than it did from white folk. What do you think is the end result of following someone who rightfully put the blame of our then present day condition on the treatment we received in this country but did not require us to do anything about it but sit in restaurants, March and allow ourselves to be beaten?

    This is why as Nmaginate pointed out recently that many conservatives try to claim Malcolm because he required more of us than he did from white folk. Where as MLK focus was on white folks treating us better and giving us something that God gave us and that is freedom and equality. I do ascribe many of the shortcomings to MLK and his CRM and I recognize that this alone is not the sole creator of such problems but it sure as hell has a big big hand in it. I personally believe that CRM has failed Black men and women and I think our present day condition confirms this.

    Lastly, the Malcolm I liked and loved was the Malcolm in the NOI.

    -------------------------
    "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
    The self-defense argument presupposes the rednecks coming to lynch you in the middle of the night. But, it was not about trying to reason with some gun-toting peckerwood on a deserted road ˜round midnight. MLK's movement was a carefully orchestrated, strategically planned, endeavor executed using non-violence as a tactic and the media as to broadcast this dramatizing of the inhumane treatment blacks were subjected to. Sit-ins and boycotts were planned at times when they would inflict the most economic damage to the establishment, i.e. holidays. 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.

    I come down squarely on the side of MLK without hesitancy or equivocation. The only caveat being I'm not looking at this from the perspective of a black man in late 2003, rather I try to see it from the vantage point of a brotha in Jim Crow Amerikkka.

    The failure of X's argument is that it assumes King was about smiling and turning the other cheek when some Ku-Kluxer bitch slaps you. It is a simplistic, immature reasoning ignorant of the painstakingly careful planning and strategizing which occurred before the first sip at the segregated fountain.

    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? As Outkast sang some 40 years later "...they made them gats they got some shit that'll blow out our backs."

    One could argue that MLK did nothing, that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments already vouchsafed our respective rights and all the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts did was reiterate them. 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. To say that African Americans have not reached the "Promised Land" is to overstate the obvious. But, ask yourself a question: 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.
    quote:
    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."
    quote:
    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
    quote:
    ...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)
    quote:
    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.
    quote:
    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!"



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

    [This message was edited by Nmaginate on December 07, 2003 at 04:35 AM.]
    I think a lot of MLK'S success was the result of the high activity of its spinoff SNCC, and high inciting voice of Malcolm. The in-the-street reality of The Black Panther party was also a strong contributor, and maybe of equal magnitude. Then President Johnson had choose. Did he want Stokely, Malcolm, or Huey, in any combination, or did he want Martin.

    In order for Martin to be successful, he had to have some successes. The masses were being divided among the "angry three." This is not to ignore, or sell short Eldridge Cleaver, ,or H. Rap Brown, or Angela Davis. It was HOT!!!

    I believe MLK's visit to the White House was to hear President Johnson ask, "What's going on?" I think Martin said, "Successes." I think Johnson replied, "What do you want/"

    I think the result was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 furhter reinforced with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, flawed as it was. None of the "angry voices" could compete.

    Everyone forgets that MLK was not the impetus behind The March on Washington. Asa Philip Randolph was the man with the vision. MLK was a participant. MLK was intended to be a lesser speaker on the program. He excelled on his own perception and genius for seiging the moment.

    If MLK has been given is a "bad rap," it is the rap of a national hero.

    It might be instructive to remember that when the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the "color barrier" in major league baseball, 90% of the players of unknown African ancestry didn't know who he was.

    Sometines many of those doing the rapping simply don't know.

    PEACE

    Jim Chester

    You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Faheem:

    Now to explain what I mean when I speak about the harmful affects of MLK and his CRM, it is no secret that MLK did not teach black men and women to do for self.


    Well, IMO, passive resistance requires at least as much discipline. To resist retaliation because of commitment to a strategy, when every impulse pushes you to respond, IMO, is probably about the hardest and most disciplined thing that a person can do. IMO, to look at the behavior without understanding the motivation, principles, and commitment underneath it is to only look at half of the picture. No, "doing for self" has a much broader definition than what appears to be used here.

    quote:
    MLK main goal was to get white folk to acknowledge us as their equals instead of proving we were their equals.


    I respectfully disagree. MLK's objective was to remove the legal teeth from Jim Crow. He pushed the country to enact Civil Rights legislation to give black America legal protection from discrimination. I don't think he had any illusions that white folks would like us or consider us their equals. That's why he sought to change the law as opposed to just peoples' minds.

    quote:
    MLK an educated man himself was not teaching what Malcolm and the NOI was teaching. To be down with MLK you were not required to have any form of self discipline, you were not made or taught to give up certain foods, behaviors and so on, you could fornicate and behave in any kind of way you wanted to and be part of the CRM.


    Tell that to Schwerner, Goodman, and Cheney. Certainly you're not indicting the CRM because of King's personal failings? Do you consider the NOI in the same light when we know that Elijah Muhammad had numerous children by different mothers?

    quote:
    On the other hand to be with Malcolm and the NOI, you were required to have discipline, you were required to study and learn, you were required to give up certain food, there was no drinking of alcoholic beverages and there was no smoking. Many black men and women will tell you strait up, that they could not be a Muslim because they have to give up certain things that they know are harmful to them and their body but being a Christian require no such thing.


    So, aside from the fact that there were personal failings in both movements (as there is throughout humanity), you somehow think that there is something about the contrast in religious ideology that empower MX's movement with greater "standing"? How does this political analysis justify against your personal religious beliefs?

    quote:
    MLK whole mission was about making white people do something and required absolutely nothing of Black men and women.


    Some would argue that in a country of white people, white institutions, and white laws, that if one sought progress there would be no other way than to work with those white people and within that white system to enact change in your behalf. How else was it to occur? Your analysis about asking nothing of black men and women just belies the facts. Thousands sacrificed their lives for the CRM: including King. In one fell swoop you just, metaphorically, spit on their graves. There were probably millions of black people all throughout America that participated in a movement to change America. You can't just pretend that those efforts did not exist. Blood was spilled and backs were broken in that effort, and in our behalf.

    quote:
    Malcolm teachings as taught to him by Mr. Muhammad required more from us than it did from white folk. What do you think is the end result of following someone who rightfully put the blame of our then present day condition on the treatment we received in this country but did not require us to do anything about it but sit in restaurants, March and allow ourselves to be beaten?


    You are evaluating a set of tactics without understanding the strategy the drives them.

    The CRM required black people to commit to a strategy of non-violence. Clearly, you either don't understand or agree with that strategy. That's cool. As has been said throughout this thread though, to focus exclusively on the strategy and ignore the objectives is short-sited. There is a saying that 'the means justifies the ends'. Now you may disagree with King's objective of executing a passive-resistant/non-violent strategy to appeal to the moral conscience of America to do the right thing regarding Civil Rights. But that was his objective, that was his strategy, and while we can argue about its ultimate impact on the America of today, the strategy was effective.

    It required people to participate in a political process during which they often put their very lives on the line. It still requires us to vote, to run for office, to be informed about the issues, and to participate in our communities - to be a part of a system that enables us to impact our environment. I hardly think that is asking nothing of us.

    quote:
    I personally believe that CRM has failed Black men and women and I think our present day condition confirms this.


    So, where would we be without it? If there was never an MLK and Malcolm was the sole driver of our people, where do you think we'd be now?

    Also, I wonder if you can comment on your perceptions of the legacy of Malcolm X? 40 years or so later, what do you view as his impact on black America?


    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 07, 2003 at 09:14 AM.]

    Add Reply

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