Skip to main content

With all the Liberal vs. Conservative chat going on, what "side" of the line would Dr King and Malcolm come down on?

Malcolm beleived that blacks should do for themselves which I believe is what ConFed is usually preaching. So would the "raticals" on this site label Malcolm a Tom and Sellout?

Dr King worked to change the white people. However, he tried to work with thw white establisment. Would he be more of a conservative or a liberal by today's standards.
_______________________ "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

MidLifeMan...

We've already been down this road with CON-Feed.
MALCOLM X: BLACK CONSERVATIVE???
quote:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "conservative" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now what exactly about that is "conservative"?
To your question, with respect to BOTH MLK and Malcolm X, neither would come down on CON-Feed's side. Neither were so narrow in their views. Both men held a degree of BOTH ideas -- those narrowly framed as "liberal" and "conservative".

Those terms essentially have no meaning in that they do a disservice by trying to pigeonhole either of those Black philosophical traditions withing a White Left vs. Right construct. Those terms simply don't convert nor can either MLK or Malcolm X be "convert" into one of those ridiculous and IRRELEVANT terms.

Please refrain from the "they're both dogs" arguments. Matter of fact, please reference THE WHOLE (not just one aspect - to misrepresent and misappropriate) of MLK's and Malcolm X's arguments and views.

Neither of them were as scared of White people (scared of challenging the system) as CON-Feed is.

CON-Feed is an ideological Test-Tube Baby. His school of non-thought has no organic history or background in any respectable African/African-American tradition.

And just in case his Test-Tube Baby a$$ wants to comment on this thread, please have him (and you can if you want to) direct his comments towards this:
"You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually
they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."


Look it up. Ponder on that for a while. Let it percolate then holla back and tell me how that BS (Malcolm beleived that blacks should do for themselves which I believe is what ConFed is usually preaching.)

But then again you apparently had problems telling the difference (the Distinctions with a pronounced Difference) between Spike Lee and Bill Cosby. sck
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

If you think about it, the entire civil rights movement - which was by definition a progressive movement - was all about black folks getting off their azzes and doing for self.
MBM, you know you're wrong. It was White people who had to lead, inspire and make Black people stand up for their rights during that time. (*sarcasm off*)
There is no versus...

First, MidLifeMan---Get enlightened a sellout is not a "Tom" a "Sambo" is a snitch and a sellout to his people.

Malcolm X started off a radical within the womb of the NOI, but softened after seeing the many, many faces of Islam upon his pilgramage to Mecca.

It is impossible to post-determine what his pre-determined politics might have been.

He was on his way to unite w/Martin and company before he was cut down -- "Unstoppable Conversation" -- featuring Ossie Davis, Melvin Van Peebles, Sr and Gordon Parks revealed this fact.

Dr. King was in fact a communist, adulturer, and plagarist--so it is hard to say where his political sentiments would stand today, as well.

Fine

PS--Malcolm X had some pretty harsh verbal indictments against Martin Luther King -- but he (Malcolm) did repent and was pictured shaking Martin's hand and having a civil conversation with him.

He also attended that private meeting {mentioned above} at Harry Bellafonte's home.

At that meeting he expressed his desire to become a catalyst and catapult the 'civil rights movement' forward in the best way he knew how...he was killed a month later!

Someone peeped the dynamics of Malcolm and Martin and ended the merge before it became reality.

I've often pondered why--after much research and study--and I have come to the conclusion that "Martin was marred" by virtue of his nefarious deeds inspite of his praise and worship of Jesus {i.e. don't know if he recognized the true essence of Iseyu, Akan name for mis-litereated Greek version of Jesus} and "Malcolm was blinded" by virtue of his denial of Jesus and worship of that black rock in Mecca....

Fine

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mlkvision
Last edited {1}
quote:
Malcolm X started off a radical within the womb of the NOI, but softened afater seeing the many, many faces of Islam upon his pilgramage to Mecca.
Please!!!!!!!!!!

quote:
Dr. King was in fact a communist, adulturer, and plagarist--so it is hard to say where his political sentiments would stand today, as well.
Please!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE... "GET ENLIGHTENED"...
quote:
"Louis X" announced in the 12/4/64 issue of Muhammad Speaks that Malcolm was

"like the famous rebel, Korah, in the times of Moses.... Another parable depicting Malcolm is that of Judas.... The die is set and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil talk about his benefactor (Elijah Muhammad) in trying to rob him of the divine glory which Allah has bestowed upon him. Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death, and would have met death if it had not been for Muhammad's confidence in Allah for victory over the enemies."
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Malcolm X started off a radical within the womb of the NOI, but softened afater seeing the many, many faces of Islam upon his pilgramage to Mecca.
Please!!!!!!!!!!

quote:
Dr. King was in fact a communist, adulturer, and plagarist--so it is hard to say where his political sentiments would stand today, as well.
Please!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE... "GET ENLIGHTENED"...


YES!! The "adultery" charges are unfounded and mostly only touted by people over at Stormfront and Vanguard. I don't know what they mean by "plagiarist", unless they are saying that he "copied Ghandi". Well, so did alot of other people.

MLK was not a "Communist", he was a Socialist. Is that a crime?
quote:
with respect to BOTH MLK and Malcolm X, neither would come down on CON-Feed's side


Wow. What a prediction. Ok. Mabye you can hook me up with today's lottery numbers Big Grin

the entire civil rights movement - which was by definition a progressive movement - was all about black folks getting off their azzes and doing for self.

But Martin was challenging the government to change. He worked to change OUR status my changing the White governments policies.

Malcom was more of fuck the government they will only cheat you and lie anyway. We don't need them.

And contrary to Nmaginate's statment to be associated with politics would probably mean they would have a "label" regardless of if they some fell they have no meaning with regards to Martin and Malcolm. And even if Both men held a degree of BOTH ideas -- those narrowly framed as "liberal" and "conservative". they would more then LIKELY assocaite with one party more then the other.
My Marxist friend Empty Purnata


Martin Luther King Jr. defined himself as a "Democratic Socialist".

Secondly his good friend Ralph David Abernathy confirmed some of the escapades with other women. I ain't mad at MLK. He is a HUMAN. His is prone to sin and failure.

Just as Thomas Jefferson and others were racists, rapists and supported a system that lead to the deaths of many Africans during the "cruise" over as they were stolen away - this doesn't tarnish their over all importance to America FOR SOME PEOPLE.

MLK stood strong. He forced change in America where America needed to change. He is a man, not God. He has flaws and it doesn't harm his accomplishments in honestly discussing his flaws.

I do agree that the idiots on Stormfront, etc seek to diminish his accomplishments but throwing up his flaws in our face. They need to look at the trail of blood that their "heros" have left.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
My Marxist friend Empty Purnata


I ain't a Marxist. Apparently, you didn't read my reponse to your thread. Marxism does not believe in a market, I do. If you don't know that, I doubt your competency to give a fair and accurate chracterization of left-wing ideals and why you reject them.


quote:
Martin Luther King Jr. defined himself as a "Democratic Socialist".


Good for him. Colin Powell is a Market Capitalist, and I don't have anything against him.

quote:
Secondly his good friend Ralph David Abernathy confirmed some of the escapades with other women. I ain't mad at MLK. He is a HUMAN. His is prone to sin and failure.


Links?

If it turns out he did, then yes is human and we all screw up. I wish the Republicans could have realized that about Bill Clinton before acting as if his affair automatically discredited everything else he had/has ever done.

quote:
Just as Thomas Jefferson and others were racists, rapists and supported a system that lead to the deaths of many Africans during the "cruise" over as they were stolen away - this doesn't tarnish their over all importance to America FOR SOME PEOPLE.


Yes, ultimately that is what they were about (wow, I'm surprised that you mentioned racism as a problem for once).

But, I do appreciate the ideals that they stood for (America for EVERYONE) over the hypocritical reality of their limited human failings.

quote:
MLK stood strong. He forced change in America where America needed to change. He is a man, not God. He has flaws and it doesn't harm his accomplishments in honestly discussing his flaws.

I do agree that the idiots on Stormfront, etc seek to diminish his accomplishments but throwing up his flaws in our face. They need to look at the trail of blood that their "heros" have left.


Amen! Wow, what's with the sudden change?
FINE, please back away from the commercialized hype!

quote:
Malcolm stood for was that tradition of black nationalism, and anyone who interprets Malcolm and says that he repudiated that tradition, anyone who says that Malcolm turned his back on black nationalism toward the end of his life, that is incorrect, wrong, not supported by the evidence.

Malcolm X was a black nationalist first, last and always.


http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barmarable.htm
Now, I'd more than welcome your evidence in support of your cliche-ish ideas here, Fine.

Please detail how Malcolm X's views "softened" with respect to Black Nationalism. That is, please detail what changed in terms of his professed Black Nationalist objectives. Which one of those objectives, the core objectives were "softened" and changed?

Upon WHAT do you base your views on?
What in particular did Malcolm X say with regards to those principles/objectives of Black Nationalism did he either disavow, dismiss, devalue or otherwise disregard after Mecca?

Did Malcolm X "soften" (i.e. modify/change) his view on Black Nationalism with respect to these definitive objectives:

  • The economic philosophy of black nationalism only means that our people need to be re-educated into the importance of controlling the economy of the community in which we live, which means that we won't have to constantly be involved in picketing and boycotting other people in other communities in order to get jobs

  • The political philosophy of black nationalism means that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community; no more.

    ... IF SO... What did they change to? What was the "soften" version of those views on Black Nationalism?

    C'mon, ENLIGHTEN me...
  • quote:
    And contrary to Nmaginate's statment to be associated with politics would probably mean they would have a "label" regardless of if they some fell they have no meaning with regards to Martin and Malcolm. And even if Both men held a degree of BOTH ideas -- those narrowly framed as "liberal" and "conservative". they would more then LIKELY assocaite with one party more then the other.
    More than likely my... $$$

    What did Malcolm himself say about BOTH parties and "associating" with them?

    Holla back when you have an informed comeback.

    quote:
    Malcom was more of fuck the government they will only cheat you and lie anyway. We don't need them.
    Sorry, my friend, that doesn't responsibly characterize Malcolm X's views.

    And this doesn't even begin to make sense. How is it that you can claim that Malcolm, e.g., would "more than likely associate with one political party or the other" when you try to simultaneously maintain that Malcolm's views can be summed up in "Fuck The USA (gov't)"??? Umm... Political parties are essentially organs of gov't.

    Also, Malcolm was pretty adamant in saying that WHITE Conservatives and Liberals were IN CAHOOTS! (His terminology)

    He characterized Liberals as Foxes and Conservatives as Wolves - both being dogs waiting to bite Black people. Now, summarized, those were his views and you can consider this as well:
    quote:

    quote:
    ...I mean we still believe in the Honorable Elijah Muhammad's solution as complete separation. [African Americans] should be separated completely from America and should be permitted to go back home to our African homeland which is a long-range program; so the short-range program is that we must eat while we're still here, we must have a place to sleep, we have clothes to wear, we must have better jobs, we must have better education; so that although our long-range political philosophy is to migrate back to our African homeland, our short-range program must involve that which is necessary to enable us to live a better life while we are still here. We must be in complete control of the politics of the so-called Negro community; we must gain complete control over the politicians in the so-called Negro community, so that no outsider will have any voice in the so-called Negro community. We'll do it ourselves.

    http://www.monthlyreview.org/564mx.htm
    While you may still narrowly (and, no doubt, naively) say that that's him saying "We Don't Need Them", an informed view of the totality of his stances whether he directly stipulated things like MLK or not would tell you that such a "Short-Term" plan requires and demands change, RADICAL CHANGE from the U.S. gov't. And please feel free to explain this too in relation to your idea:

    quote:
    But the United Nations has what's known as the charter of human rights; it has a committee that deals in human rights. You may wonder why... the Negro problem is never brought before the UN. This is part of the conspiracy. This old, tricky blue eyed liberal who is supposed to be your and my friend, supposed to be in our corner, supposed to be subsidizing our struggle, and supposed to be acting in the capacity of an adviser, never tells you anything about human rights. They keep you wrapped up in civil rights. And you spend so much time barking up the civil-rights tree, you don't even know there's a human-rights tree on the same floor.

    When you expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights, you can then take the case of the black man in this country before the nations in the UN. You can take it before the General Assembly. You can take Uncle Sam before a world court. But the only level you can do it on is the level of human rights. Civil rights keeps you under his restrictions, under his jurisdiction. Civil rights keeps you in his pocket. Civil rights means you're asking Uncle Sam to treat you right. Human rights are something you were born with. Human rights are your God-given rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth. And any time any one violates your human rights, you can take them to the world court.

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballot.htm
    Tell me? Why would Malcolm consider taking our case before the U.N. under the rubric of HUMAN RIGHTS if his objective was not to demand or force the American gov't/society to CHANGE?
    Ok. Then I have my answer. In your view, Malcolm would still be outside the main stream and not involved with either political body although it was said that he was ready to start associating with the more main stream civil rights groups and leaders.

    And this doesn't even begin to make sense. How is it that you can claim that Malcolm, e.g., would "more than likely associate with one political party or the other" when you try to simultaneously maintain that Malcolm's views can be summed up in "Fuck The USA (gov't)"??? Umm... Political parties are essentially organs of gov't.

    Who is to say the Malcolm of then would still be the same today. Men can and do change and "soften" over time. Razz Bobby Rush was a panther then and a became a Congress man.

    But what about Martin?
    While you may still narrowly (and, no doubt, naively) say that that's him saying "We Don't Need Them",????

    I SAY?? HE SAID IT!!!

    We must be in complete control of the politics of the so-called Negro community; we must gain complete control over the politicians in the so-called Negro community, so that no outsider will have any voice in the so-called Negro community. We'll do it ourselves.

    So your point is well taken that both he and Martian wanted to change the government. And as far as the UN thing goes, Malcolm wasn't stupid or blind to certain realities. Martin wanted them to change and to have them accept us as full citizens and to be integrated into their society. Malcolm wanted them to change to free us in order to control our own destiny.

    should be separated completely from America and should be permitted to go back home to our African homeland which is a long-range program.

    A woman who was abused by her husband could either stay and endure the abuse and hope that he will change and NEVER abuse her again (Martin) or say to hell with you I'm out of here I want a divorce. But if she has no resources and has relied on him then she KNOWS she is stuck until finally able to leave her abuser (Malcolm)
    quote:
    Who is to say the Malcolm of then would still be the same today.
    Who is to say that he would not be "the same" and would not hold to the very positions he professed... as opposed to commericialized BS people want to believe.

    As far as this:
    quote:
    It was said that he was ready to start associating with the more main stream civil rights groups and leaders.
    You only complicate your very own views about his supposed disengaged, FUCK THE GOV'T stance. Please GET A CLUE!

    Unwitting as it may have been, CON-Feed tried to help you (as he tried to redirect the thread with his Malcolm = Judas reference). The whole public life of Malcolm X was one of activism and a desire on his part to be directly involved in "Black Politics". You might have been safe to say the NOI (under Elijah Muhammad) was of the "fuck the government... We don't need them" variety. But Malcolm was a political being, first, foremost and always.

    And ummm.... Being MAINSTREAM is inconsistent if it is your view that CON-Feed typifies what Malcolm believed. That is unless you're saying CON-Feed and Black CONservativism is, oddly, within the Black Political Mainstream.

    As for MLK and how readily or easily he would "associate" with either party, first, consider his "disappointment" with White Moderates/Liberals as expressed in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail and then reflect on this:

  • "I'm worried and concerned. I've been working hard all my life to promote the cause of integration. Now that integration is beginning to happen... have I led my people to join a sinking ship?" - MLK

  • Malcolm X: You don't integrate with a sinking ship. You don't do anything to further your stay on board a ship that you see is on its way down to the bottom of the ocean...

    Hmm... (for FINE)... WHO WAS GRAVITATING TO WHOM?
  • quote:
    A woman who was abused by her husband could either stay and endure the abuse and hope that he will change and NEVER abuse her again (Martin) or say to hell with you I'm out of here I want a divorce. But if she has no resources and has relied on him then she KNOWS she is stuck until finally able to leave her abuser (Malcolm)
    You're complicating things and continuing your narrow view steeped in what can only be called willed confusion.

    quote:
    It is not a case of our people . . . wanting either separation or integration. The use of these words actually clouds the real picture. [African-Americans] don't seek either separation or integration. They seek recognition and respect as human beings.

    Malcolm X, "Kup's Show", Channel 7, TV, Chicago, aired 23 May 1964
    How it is you continued to frame things in terms of "CITIZENSHIP" when Malcolm directly contended with, highlighted what's problematic with that frame... is beyond me. I'm like? Did you actually read the quote?

    Please note CIVIL RIGHTS activism would be seeking measures to recognize or honor CITIZENSHIP. Conceptually, HUMAN RIGHTS is a broader, transcendant idea that can't be captured within the narrow frame (there goes that word again) of Civil Rights or citizenship.

    Also note, since you pretend to recognize evolution or "change"... the Long-Term vs. Short-Term plan quote was recorded as taking place in March 19, 1964 - i.e. before Mecca and during the time of his split with the NOI.

    http://www.brothermalcolm.net/mxtimeline.html

    RECONCILE that however you must. But RECONCILE it. All of it! And you can also explain why there is such a thing as a Short-Term Plan (and exactly how "short" it is or is supposed to be) if your characterization is to hold true. You know, how you tried to say CON-Feed, more or less, typifies what Malcolm X stood for.

    quote:
    And as far as the UN thing goes, Malcolm wasn't stupid or blind to certain realities. Martin wanted them to change and to have them accept us as full citizens and to be integrated into their society. Malcolm wanted them to change to free us in order to control our own destiny.
    You're saying this to me when it was you who narrowly said that "Fuck The Gov't WE DON'T NEED THEM" stuff??

    To the point... You would be hard pressed to say CON-Feed's rhetorical reflects an understanding or even an interest in NOT BEING BLIND. Matter of fact, I'm glad you said it. You've just proven how CON-Feed is Deaf, DUMB and BLIND to the certain realities. And it is along the lines of those CERTAIN (as in sure) REALITIES that his inflated and empty rhetoric is rebuked here. (Him and Cosby, etc.) I don't know why that is so hard to understand or why it has to come to this for the "point to be well taken."

    Thank you very much though! You were on fire with that one, bro! tfro
    (The convoluted and still confused terms of "citizenship" and "integration" notwithstanding...)
    Last edited {1}
    Except for his one flaw--worshipping that black rock in Mecca.

    Malcolm X was the man!
    Malcolm X fathered: Attallah, Qubilah, Ilyasah, Gamilah, and Twins--Malaak, Malikah.
    Malcolm X was a faithful husband to the end...

    His oldest daughter--Attallah Shabazz-is quite the eloquent speaker, like father-like daughter... and she is still alive....

    In her own words--"My father is not just an icon," she says. "He was a man who was ever evolving, always growing."


    Fine heart

    Click ["Listen"]:


    http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=14[/URL]

    http://www.brothermalcolm.net/family/daughters.html#ilyasah
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Except for his one flaw--worshipping that black rock in Mecca.
    And ONE MAJOR FLAW of yours is your UNENLIGHTENED views. It takes more than just cliches', popular surmises and quotes from someone OTHER than the subject (Malcolm X) himself to establish the point you thought you would make without it being scrutinized.

    "He was a man who was ever evolving, always growing."

    And George Bush has arguably "evolved" too. But that says nothing about the state, direction or essence of that "evolution."

    Please.... GET A CLUE!

    Oh... and I await your links and references that detail how Malcolm X "softened" his core views and was somehow less Radical or less than Radical after Mecca.

    I'd like to see you RECONCILE that with the fact that he was "cut down" before he could unite with Martin.

    Please grace us with what you have found on this question/issue in all you great study and research.
    quote:
    Kevin's claim to fame is to tell us how well his plan protected Black folks, doubling the number who were accepted into college.



    **CF's claim to fame was to hate me for doing so and working with racist YT to lessen the effectiveness of my plan and lower the number of blacks who were accepted into college. That puts him closer to racist YT and further from black people who think like me,the very people who determined those numbers in the first place.


    *Now since CF does not answer logical and specific questions, i'll ask others in here: With the comparisons I have listed above, please tell me who would come across as detrimental to their race (assuming he's black also)and blk-con, me or CF? I would say CF, but if I am wrong please correct me.

    Add Reply

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