Skip to main content

One thing I forgot to address was the assertion that Malcolm constantly alluded to violence but never practiced it, thus making him one that talked all that noise in the North and not in the south.

Malcolm frequented the south, the east and the west he was not confined to the North and you can not show me where some one put their hands on Malcolm or threw a rock at Malcolm. So he talked the talk and because he did no white citizen dared try that B.S. they did with MLK with him.

-------------------------
"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 Faheem:

So he talked the talk and because he did no white citizen dared try that B.S. they did with MLK with him.


But did MX expose himself to the public in the way that MLK did? MX wasn't exactly leading marches or doing book signings (where MLK was stabbed). brosmile

At the end of the day though, he suffered the same fate that Martin did.


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 am aware that to sit in a restaurant and allow someone to beat, you, spit on you and spray you with water hoses require some discipline but how does such discipline become self discipline, something we are in more need of today than ever in our history. How did allowing ourselves to be brutalized in hopes of appealing to the morality of the most immoral people on the earth give us any discipline. Yes, it eventually convinced them that treating us like that was wrong but it also said to them they just need to put on a different face and use covert racism instead of overt racism. Getting the hell beat out of you is not doing for self.

Do you not see that all you have stated as being MLK objectives required us to do absolutely nothing and required everything from white folks, do you not see the side affects of such a movement is one of dependency? I am not concerned with Elijah Muhammad wives and children no more than I am concerned with MLK womanizing ways; both are irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing what they taught and the end result of such teaching. What was your purpose in mentioning those two Jews that died, it is unfortunate that the Jewish community has shoved those two men down our throat while so many Black men and women that were killed and disappeared in the night doing the same damn thing they were doing if not more goes unrecognized. Those two dying was no more important than any other person except that they were Jews something we are constantly reminded of.

I definitely believe that there is something in contrast to both of these men religious belief that made their movements and those who were with them different. One required more self discipline while the other required very little if any at all. What do you think is the end result or the message in that? What does my personal belief's have to do with this discussion and my views on these two men? Are you suggesting because I am a Muslim, I am more likely to side with Malcolm? Does this mean because you are a Christian you are more likely to side with MLK?

Why are you stating what some would argue? What would you argue? Such an argument as we must work with white folk need to be defined, are we working with them as equal free men and women or are we their subordinates. Negroes appear to be scared of real freedom one that is not dependent on white folks for anything, one that require us to do more for ourselves than they do for us.

I recognize the work of MLK and all those who died with him but what I am saying to you is that today the end result of their work in relation to our current condition is one of failure. You can take that or let it alone. The CRM movement did not empower Black men and women to do for self, it forced integration down out throats and destroyed black businesses and schools and was the antecedent to a form of dependency and traitorous behavior unlike their has been in our history before. If you say this is spitting on the grave of those that died, I say oh well, I think those that died could not see the end result of their action and did what they did in hopes of a different result. I say what I say standing here in a time where the end result of their work is manifested to say to you that their work has not made the black man and woman free, nor has it made us a more disciplined people.

If the ends justify the means, has the work of MLK and CRM been justified, does our present day condition confirm such. I am aware of all the social change that has happen since the hay day of the CRM but because the people involved in such were not prepared and disciplined to do for self and have love for self and not depend on white folk the condition we have to day is the end result thus to me this says the ends does not justify the means, Solomonic I believed asked are we better off today than we were then. Sure we are better off as far as white folks killing and lynching us, but because no self discipline was taught we have become the killers, the dope dealers and the lynch men thus helping white folks with what they started.

Where would we be without MLK, I don't know. We could ask where we would be without any of those that have fought for us in the past, and it will not change how things are today, so your hypothetical question can only be answers with something that also is hypothetical and we do not live in a world of what ifs; we live in the real world.

My view of Malcolm's legacy can be extrapolated from what I have written in this thread as my view of MLK legacy can be extrapolated from what I have written.


Also Malcolm was not doing marches and book signing but he was speaking all over this country, and at many institutions of Higher learning. Do not make it appear as if Malcolm was hidding behind some bush and MLK was not, white folks knew that they could say and do things to MLK that they could never do and say to 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:
MX wasn't exactly leading marches or doing book signings (where MLK was stabbed).
All the speeches Malcolm X did at all the various colleges, etc...

That doesn't equate to "exposing" himself?
THe trip to Mecca and Africa?

C'mon... We just need to stop this madness.

Now, as for Blacks brandish guns, etc. I have offered the Deacons For Defense, let alone the BPP... And if anyone wants to dismiss them (particularly the BPP) as irrational radical hot-heads then all I have to say is that they would be without a doubt either someone who is very ignorant or someone whose reflexive favor of Dr. King blinds them in a damn near elitist classism to what the positive responses and contributions of ALL our people were at that time. Responses that came from where they were... and what they felt they had to deal with.

Again, does anyone honestly believe that a Black man anywhere in America especially one that spoke out in any kind of voice against [White] America was "safe" or "safer" based on local? If so, all they really need to study is the history of the BPP. Fred Hampton & Mark Clark in Chicago (that's in the North right)...

That was in 1969 when things were "better"...

It's actually a contradictory notion that, "No! Advocating violence would mean disaster!" Then trying to say those that didn't actually faced more violence.... huh??

Now we know what N-V-P-R "exposed" brother Martin and his 'followers' to but you also can't ignore the "miltancy" SNCC, etc. and, again, the DEACONS and how it seems none of that jeopardized the Movement in acheiving what it did and, by Black "popular" conception helped forced the hand or rather forced [White] America to choose between our Wolf and our Fox.

I think Malcolm's critique of that situation was accurate... just like White America is choosing and "propping up" the B-Con's as the "rational" Black leadership against the traditional CR Leadership... It was the Black "liberal" CR Leadership that was chosen because they required less - i.e. were the Lesser of The TWO Black "Evils".

It just "so happens now" that the B-Con's don't demand anything from White people even while by the most radical standards of the "miltants" the traditional CR Leadership require very little then and now... ultimately.

I think KEVIN used an analogy on another thread that if a man that stole so much of your money (or worth) then by circumstances of a confrontation, violent or not, was obliged to return a fraction of it... what really victory have you gained and what real sacrifice has he made in taking a peacemeal, "incremental" approach to returning what is/was already rightfully yours.

The effect alone of being without those possessions for the length of time is actually a greater loss than that actual value of what was "taken".

It's like the concept in (NBA/college) basketball that commentators like to speak about
in terms of a ... say 5 pt "TURNAROUND" when say... the Black team by circumstances within the game by hook or crook "loses" [1] they're own opportunity to score say what would have be an old fashion 3pt-play because of a controversial "offensive" foul called on them that set and emotional down-tone that changed the immediate complexion of the game and "allowed" the White team to say... score an easy basket in the lane for 2 quick pts. right after the controversial play because they went right at the player on the Black team that got into foul trouble and couldn't play his normal aggressive defense for fear of fouling out...

Now... no amount of a "make-up" call after-the-fact can bring back the
[1] momentum the Black team had prior to the controversial call;
[2] the actual points the BLACK team would have had;
[3] the more aggressive play via the disadvantageous foul situation of the... shall I say, SHOT BLOCKER and offensive Low-Post, SHAQ-like BLACK player (I'm not sure but I think someone here once said MX = Shaq and MLK = Kobe...)

Anyway... That's enough of my allegorical, metaphorical, explanatorical Big Grin, rethorical take...

(so now... MBM, is this evaluation of how "success" a 'player' on a team is just based on sure stats or the actual circumstances of the game in order to properly assess their "effectiveness" in an absolute sense to the "team effort"...)

Alright don't start that back up again... what was I thinking of??? ---->>> giveup Big Grin

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

quote:
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.

That's a key observation, FAHEEM.

I'm inclined to call them the BootLeg Self-Reliance Advocates or whatever terms they like but they are the BOOTLEG version of what Malcolm X, NOI, BPP, etc. were actually doing, have done, and continue to do in the very communities of ours that they so castigate.

I haven't heard of a B-Con independently established school(s). PLENTY of those "played out" Black Nationalists, including the NOI did in fact set up BLACK schools and didn't ask "The White Man" for jack... but both their "liberal" and "conservative" brethren could care less especially then and haven't indicated beyond rhetoric that they are remotely interested in "having our own" schools as an expression of "personal responsibility"

They talk that shit about "not expecting The White Man to do anything for us" and how that doesn't make any sense... OH!! but they revel in his institutions. AND I FEEL LIKE if their so smart and so into Black people not asking for "hand-outs" WHERE ARE THEY ON THE AGENDA for building our own institutions, putting their money, resources and efforts towards that end. They say accepting stuff that's "given" to us more or less fails to build good Black character then what's up with accepting both the intellectual and institutional "hand-out" of a "White" education (public or f~ckin' private) when we should be "personally responsible" for ourselves?

BTW... For WhiteHEADs like this Toussaint character... the "Black" lingo for "personal responsibility" is "DO FOR SELF" and there are a few others but like you said... if you sound like, [look like, and act like] someone White then sobeit!

I guess that explains the narrow scope of the "hand-outs" you are against. I guess some in certain instances are okay, huh?

I haven't heard of a B-Con (established NATIONWIDE) Ministry that go into prisons and transform and turn brothers lives away from a life of crime to one of "personal responsibility"... I acknowledge the traditional CHristian ministries but I think FAHEEM's observations about the strict moral "requirements" and the obligatory community focused revitalization not to mention the self-sufficient Black businesses that are proffered through the NOI, etc.

When the NOI organized to patrol drug-dealer-infested communities in D.C. (publicized on BET some 10-15 years ago) I never heard of them getting any support verbally or otherwise from the B-Con's.... hmmm... I wonder why??

That is what they are about right? Trying to clean up "our act"... conspicous by their absence on all too many fronts...

FRONTS... That's a good word. BOOTLEGGING FRONTS! - aka The B-Con All-Stars!!
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:

Also Malcolm was not doing marches and book signing but he was speaking all over this country, and at many institutions of Higher learning. Do not make it appear as if Malcolm was hidding behind some bush and MLK was not, white folks knew that they could say and do things to MLK that they could never do and say to Malcolm.



Look, ultimately "they" assassinated him. What more could they do to him?

I'll respond further later.


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
As far as nonviolence is concerned, it worked perfectly for Gandhi because the Indian pop. outnumbered the white British population by 300 to 1. Half a billion Indians vs. 3million British? That's a train wreck waiting to happen. If I were an English Royal, I'd be on my knees every night thanking God that Mahatma Gandhi was a peaceful man. Had Gandhi been a role model for the NOI, instead of MLK, the world would be very different now.
MBM I am well aware that Malcolm was assassinated, hence your argument that Malcolm was in the safety of the north has been contradicted by your own writing. I could have easily pointed out that both men were assassinated when you were pontificating about Malcolm being in the safety of the north.

I have the simplest of questions, if we take both men speeches any number of them, which of these two great men speeches would be most relevant today! Any intellectually honest person would have to say Malcolm's by far. What does this mean in the long run? Was Malcolm ahead of his time and MLK on time? Or was Malcolm path as taught to him by Elijah Muhammad always the path we should have taken?

-------------------------
"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 Faheem:

MBM I am well aware that Malcolm was assassinated, hence your argument that Malcolm was in the safety of the north has been contradicted by your own writing.


Where did I ever suggest that? You are the one who introduced geography into the discussion.


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
Ahh... after a second look it was not you it was Solomonic....My bad!! winkgrin

-------------------------
"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
I was snowed in this weekend, so I'm just getting to the board after a hiatus. This is an interesting topic. I am one of those people who admires Malcolm X and I must say, there are more people in the Black community who grew up listening about MX at home rather than Martin here in the Northeast. I would be willing to bet that many of our white friends who visit us would say that they like Martin much better. He makes them feel good about themselves, he didn't pour too much truth out on them. I feel Malcolm is powerful because he told white people what was wrong with them and he told us what's wrong with us. He didn't dilute it or 'gospel' it up. There was no need for that 'hidden message' that we had to do in the past to keep our lives. It was straight and no runaround. And the point about assasination, Malcolm was assasinated first and Martin was assasinated only after he started seeing things the way Malcolm saw them. For example, when he started speaking out about the war in Vietnam, that was it for him.
Another point I'd like to make here is the constant comparison of Martin to Ghandi. There is no comparison. Although Ghandi had numbers on his side and was a 'peaceful' man, what most scholars overlook and they do this intentionally is that for every peaceful protest Ghandi had there was always a backup violent plan in place in case the non-violent approach didn't work. Martin never had such plans. Malcolm X on the other hand did. He met with various revolutionaries due to the easy access from him living in NYC and temple 7 being in Harlem. Malcolm was also planning to have former Black American Vietnam vets train troops in Africa on how to fight to expel the European/American colonialist and their businesses. Reference Karl Evanzz.
To answer your question, Does MLK get a bad rap? No. Every year in school our children are taught about him and his great works and he has a holiday in commemoration of his life.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
quote:
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"...


It is clear that you need a reality check. You assume that I am unaware of the Deacons For Defense and you are dead wrong. The Deacons stole their munitions from the docks of New Orleans to face off a handful of small town peckerwoods. What kind of nationwide strategy was that for black folk? Steal some grenades and automatic weapons to face down the people who made the very weapons your arsenal is comprised of. What happens when the Governor orders the National Guard in?
Whites were known for running wild lynching blacks and burning down black towns for any reason--usually for a spurious one. So some white goes on the radio and claims there's an armed revolt and then the rednecks run wild. The result would have been a Second Holocaust for Africans in Amerikkka.

quote:
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)



You do not feel the need to choose and that is your option. But black people in that era did have to choose and luckily more chose MLK's method. Again, whether or not blacks chose to exercise their God-given right to defend themselves has nothing to do with white perception. Unfortunately, the fact that this nation is 70% percent white and only 13% black means we--now just like then--don't have the luxury of ignoring white perception no matter how off-base it may be.

quote:
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!



You sound just like one of those black conservatives telling me that white liberals controlled my decision to vote Democrat instead of Republican. As if I could not possibly evaluate both sides and decide based on their platforms. Odd that you enjoy lambasting black CONservatives so much since you have co-opted one of their chief tactics.


quote:
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.


In your egoistic, narcisstic solipsism you ASSumed that I claimed or suggested you did. You ignored my usage of "one" as it referred to anyone at all. If I wanted to refer to you I would have quoted you specifically. The sun doesn't rise and set by your vanity. Next time use your Nmagination.



quote:
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!"




That was infantile. Do I believe my life and life chances is better off now than it would have been 40 years ago--unequivocally yes. I owe this better life to MLK and the many who fought and died for the CRM. MLK and other CRM leaders achieved measureable, concrete results. I have read X's autobiography and heard all of his taped speeches several times over. I don't need to rely on the media, biographers, essayists, or editorialists when I can judge his own words--written and spoken.

In closing, it's people like you who have derailed (and continue to derail) progressive movements since this nation's inception. You seem more caught up in your supposed intellectual superiority than in discourse that may lead to progress. It's almost as if you'd rather have your way or no way at all--to hell with rather someone else's idea works or not. You don't know me, and I certainly have not posted enough on this forum for you to form an opinion of my overall views, yet you went into attack mode from the jump street. I choose King over Malcolm X, that's my prerogative. Both are matyrs and both are due respect but I give more to MLK as I conclude he was the more effectual of the two. If you or anyone else disagree that's your prerogative. If anyone wants to debate effectuality then I would defy themto point not to what Malcolm X said but to what he actually did.
yeah but you never know....I think blacks would have been respected and feared more of they were something besides bowed-head praying and forgiving negroes....knowing the other side like I do.....I think that fringe element would have worn off significantly, especially with casualties.....so none of us know which approach would have been actually better, in terms of what it would have gained long-term....and you never know...if King was their only person to deal with, they may have not taken the CRM movement seriously. many a older black believes that Malcolm helped speed things up.....and that the whites did not want to deal with him.....especially that guerrilla warfare would have occured against the klan and maybe communists would have supplied blacks with weapons.........
quote:
In closing, it's people like you who have derailed (and continue to derail) progressive movements since this nation's inception. You seem more caught up in your supposed intellectual superiority than in discourse that may lead to progress.
Okay, SOLOMONIC...

I'll take this back to the high road. But not before I ask you what this comment is indicative of?
quote:
One could argue that MLK did nothing... One could argue that and from a literalist interpretation one would be correct. While technically correct, you would also be out of your rabid-ass mind.
Perogative Granting or assuming one's Intellect Superiority?

And I guess I'm to assume you were talking to the air? and none of that was directed at what you assumed to be my arguments/position? (Note: I'm pretty sure only myself and FAHEEM could have been seen as on Malcolm X side at that time... So playing that "I wasn't talking to you" game is a little lame.)

ANyway... (that's all off the high road)
Let's talk about this "derailing" effect.
First did the actions of the DEACONS "derail" the Civil Rights Movement?

I won't even ask you how you can attribute (if you do) the CRM to MLK as if he invented it and organized it 'from the ground up'...

Did the CRM accomplish it's objectives? Did it?
If so then what is all this talk about "derailing" for? (See, when I asked you straight questions like this earlier you didn't care to respond but instead wanted to talk about people being out of their "rabid-a$$ mind(s)".)

Well, SOLOMONIC, since I can't help but to assume that you feel that Malcolm X's philosophy was at least not at all helpful to the CRM if not part of the "derailing" process... Could you please reconcile the following observation:
    "Looking back on the strategies, efforts, organizations, leaders, and results of everyone involved in the civil rights movement of the 60's I must admit one thing. The non-violent movement to integrate African-Americans into the general society only fought a battle. Our strategy did not take into account all aspects of the struggle. We won what we fought for...we did not fight for enough. Malcolm X had the best plan. He saw the problem correctly and developed a strategy for total victory." - James Farmer (founder of C.O.R.E.)
Does that sound like Malcolm X co-opted the CRM or that the CRM was "derailed" because of people like him? or like me... (not that I even begin to compare myself but I do think he and others like him felt they were "right"... Nevertheless, having that type of attitude says nothing about whether or not a person will or will not support the efforts of others, even those whom he might think are "wrong" on certain points/angles... e.g. Malcolm X's willingness to support MLK.)

Also could you illustrate how it is that you "want to debate effectually"? You weren't talking to anyone in particular remember? - aka didn't engage anyone directly as not to elicit any direct response. Hmmmm.... Is that an advanced debate technique?

And, no, it was your "rabid a$$ mind" comment that started the 'spiral' and attacks.
quote:
It's almost as if you'd rather have your way or no way at all--to hell with rather someone else's idea works or not.
Hmmm....
If I say I feel no need to choose one or the other that really means I'm against an idea that works right? Right?

You might want to check your own opinion. You come down squarely on one side and apparently nothing can be said to you... You have, in effect, said, "TO HELL with anyone who sees value in Malcolm X's stance". Have you not?

I think Faheem makes a compelling point of what Malcolm X was able to do to inspire others to do.

Again, did or did the CRM not accomplished its objectives? If it did, how was it "derailed" or jeopardized? And how do you square James Farmer comments with your perspective?

Thank you!
quote:
Unfortunately, the fact that this nation is 70% percent white and only 13% black means we--now just like then--don't have the luxury of ignoring white perception no matter how off-base it may be.
I would like to seriously explore that...

I do think you have to answer what kind of traction the CRM was getting "before" Malcolm X and the more radical elements came on the scene.

Where was it going then? What were the overriding White "perceptions" of MLK when White America was dismissive or unaware of Malcolm X? Was MLK received well then?

You seem to be historically astute and whether you attribute anything to Malcolm X or not, historically speaking, what accounts for how slow things went prior to the "radical" voices emerging?

See, my main, point here is that compartmentalizing is a White/Western/European concept and application. A more authenic Black/African one is akin to the Chinese Yin/Yang. So called competing force work together "for the good". This is essentially the point that I think both MBM and I make, though with perhaps different emphasis.

And... it's not about IGNORING White perceptions... but surely you cannot believe that by basing what you do on their "perceptions" especially the wild and crazy ones that you are not in effect "compromising" - i.e. limiting - your position. Sorry, but I don't believe in that kind of second-class citizenship nor will I advocate for it. You might not agree with that characterization but, honestly, tell what that is, in your opinion?

The SECOND HOLOCAUST??? Is this some speculative paranoia or what?

Yeah... were should live out of constant fear of genocide... That's why we don't have the "luxury"... THEY'LL KILL US!

Hmmm... I haven't seen, especially now, the traditional Civil Rights stance really engender any change in that mentality of theirs. Matter of fact, what's to say the SECOND HOLOCAUST isn't underway now because we know White people are tired of us "whining"...

  • We can't talk about REPARATIONS cause White people don't like that...
  • Now we got to give up Affirmative Action cause White people don't like that...
  • We'll continue to be subject to institutional racism cause you can't expect White people to do anything about that...

    That really makes a lot of sense now that you say it! Roll Eyes Really... it does! winkgrin

    Seriously... What does taking that posture do for us?
  • Add Reply

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