Skip to main content

http://news.bhonline.org

quote:
The True History of Malcolm X and the NOI

The history of Malcolm X has been told a number of times and from many angles coming from those who loved him from a distance - but never knew him. Missing from that same history, however, are the voices of those who knew the man and were active with him in the Nation of Islam (NOI) when he was the national representative of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad and who remain active in the NOI under the guidance of Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Some who love the revolutionary figure blame the NOI and Min. Farrakhan for Malcolm X's tragic end February 21, 1965, when he was assassinated in New York's Audobon Ballroom while giving a speech. Many who love him today only know the Malcolm X that has been sold to the public through books, movies and articles produced, written and promoted by others who also never knew the man or the circumstances of his life and times in the NOI.

Abdul Wazir Muhammad (AWM), 74, a long time NOI minister who met Malcolm X in the late 1950s and worked with, learned from and grew to love him, offers another perspective on the man that is not often presented. Still active with the NOI and a staunch supporter of Min. Farrakhan, Bro. Wazir recently spoke with The Black House News (BHN) and shared some of his recollections about the Malcolm X he knew and how that man compares with the anti-NOI hero that has been manufactured, spread and largely accepted around the world.
(Read the full article)
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

We are supposed to believe that this biased view is more objective than any others?

I bought some mohammed Speaks newspapers when I was in grammar school. I learned about their mythology. My thought than was, "How could anybody believe this nonsense." So I confess I have a doubtful attitude about anyone that would join the NOI, including Malcolm X.

At least he had sense enough to break with them.

umbra [8]
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:

We are supposed to believe that this biased view is more objective than any others?



That's clearly, directly... ridiculously out of whack with what was said:

quote:
Abdul Wazir Muhammad (AWM), 74, a long time NOI minister who met Malcolm X in the late 1950s and worked with, learned from and grew to love him, offers another perspective on the man that is not often presented.


There were clearly NO claims to be "more objective", just that, to this point, few if any of the people who have written about Malcolm X have actually lived with, worked with or known him, on a personal level.

That you would pose such a question, making such a baseless statement and the go on to, perhaps unwittingly, list your very own biased view... Well, that just shows how you didn't have enough sense to say something that made sense.

quote:



Anyway... thanks for the info. 1Mile


quote:
once again umbra, did you even read what you're attempting to comment on and argue about?

one thing about it, the brother speaking has got to be more objective than you because he actually knew malcolm - you didn't. so how would you know what was objective and what wasn't?

and if you think that most of what you have read about malcolm has NOT been biased, then you're in sadder shape than your tantrum here indicates.

please wake up!
I assume everything is biased, it is the degree and ridiculousness of bias that matters. I already said the fact that Malcolm even joined the NOI makes me wonder about him.

I notice you don't say anything about the NOI's mythology. What does that say about the objectivity of everyone ever involved in the organization?

Talk about waking up.

umbra [41]
for the THIRD time - did you even read the article umbra?

good god amighty!

as far as NOI mythology - what does that have to do with the information in the interview ... the interview that you didn't even read and yet are all up in the discussion. what are you afraid of?

the NOI teaches that white people were grafted out of black people .. you know grafting, the scientific process that white folks are utilizing today in their labs? if you think that is mythology what is your explanation for how white people came to be on the planet?

let's hear it.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:the NOI teaches that white people were grafted out of black people .. you know grafting, the scientific process that white folks are utilizing today in their labs? if you think that is mythology what is your explanation for how white people came to be on the planet?

let's hear it.



... and something about a mothership full of black scientists orbiting the earth? Which Farrakhan has claimed to have been on?
LOL

you want me to answer all of your questions but for some reason .... fear, intimidation, *shrug*, you don't want to answer mine.

if you don't want to answer mine or anyone else's, why are you in this thread? i have no more answers for you until you can be forthcoming with some of your own.

what are you afraid of? so afraid that you can't even read a harmless article but are all up in here trying to get other people to disregard what you THINK is in it. where is the logic in that? (don't worry umbra, you don't have to answer that, it's a rhetorical question).
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
... and something about a mothership full of black scientists orbiting the earth? Which Farrakhan has claimed to have been on?


yes there is teaching of a mother plane (never said to have been full of "black" scientists). and min. farrakhan has often talked about a "vision" he had years ago. yes? what of it?

what does all this have to do with the topic of this thread?
quote:
Malcolm's great ability - a blessing and a curse

He had a problem, [however], and that was having this great big head, this great big mind. Oftentimes, he assumed leadership position that he didn't really have.



quote:
what are you afraid of? so afraid that you can't even read a harmless article but are all up in here trying to get other people to disregard what you THINK is in it. where is the logic in that? (don't worry umbra, you don't have to answer that, it's a rhetorical question).


I have heard this egoistic crap about being afraid, before and before and before... YAWN! I grew up in Chicago. Malcom X was shot shortly before my 13th birthday. I have met and talked to Black Muslims. The way you sound it might even have been before you were born. You and that article aren't saying anything new to me. From watching videos of Malcolm and stuff I have read I find it difficult to understand why someone of his intelligence got involved with them. I remember being impressed by a Black Muslim restaurant when I was a kid and I could see working with them on a strictly economic basis, but I would want nothing to do with the religion.

umbra [68]
okay umbra - you still never directly answered the question - but okay. you have issues with the NOI and that is very clear by the way you have conducted yourself in this thread.

do your thing!!! i don't have time for the runaround and just for the record, you never did come up with a better explanation for how white people came to be on the planet. ;-)

you reject NOI "mythology" but isn't it true that you accept much of the white man's mythology, tales, explanations, etc.? and without question too, but you have a problem with NOI teachings. why? because they came from people who look like you and the white man doesn't give his approval of them?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
you reject NOI "mythology" but isn't it true that you accept much of the white man's mythology, tales, explanations, etc.? and without question too, but you have a problem with NOI teachings. why? because they came from people who look like you and the white man doesn't give his approval of them?


Why is it that the only defense the NOI has for its tales (that I've heard time and time again) is "well, nigga, you'll believe the white man's tales..." ????? Roll Eyes

Is that really the best that can be done?
honest brother, i asked you what your question (about the motherplane) had to do with the article. you come back talking about "okay, i read it. what am i supposed to get out of it?"

LOL

you have issues with the NOI too and like i told umbra, do your thing! the silliness is too much for me. nobody asked either one of you to come in here .... but here you are talking about "what am i supposed to get out of it." all i can do right about now is LOL @ you two.

what a shame! and you "know" the NOI "blew away" malcolm - how? were you there or do you take the white man's word, i.e. mythology for gospel truth while at the same time criticizing your own black people for the same thing?
quote:
you reject NOI "mythology" but isn't it true that you accept much of the white man's mythology, tales, explanations, etc.? and without question too,


You can believe I accept anything if you want.

Example: I worked for IBM for 4 years. They came out with a machine called a Datamaster 23 which replaced another machine, the 5100. I wanted to know how much faster the new machine was than the old one. I assumed the new one was faster. I wrote my own benchmarks and keyed them in and tested both machines myself. The old machine was almost twice as fast as the new one in both benchmarks.

The only reason I trust White people to tell me the time of day is because it is so easy to check. I have caught White people hiding information from other White people so often it ain't funny. I remember when I was a kid thinking how silly it was for the NOI to go aound talking, "The White Man is The Devil." But the more I have learned the more I have thought, "The White Man isn't the Devil, he isn't smart enough, but the Devil is his Prince. The Prince of LIARS.

The trouble with the NOI is they expect everyone to get emotional about this crap rather adopt cold calculating warfare tactics. Sun Tzu is more my style than either Farrakhan or Malcolm, though I'd sooner listen to Malcolm.

Evolution isn't something that can be tested and repeated like physics experiments so I can't say I know evolution is the case like I know how trnsistors work, but I regard it as an adequate explanation. The palefces have acknowledged they evolved from Africans. At least the ones with functioning brains. ROFL

umbrarchist [100]

ps - I conclude you are in the NOI.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
you reject NOI "mythology" but isn't it true that you accept much of the white man's mythology, tales, explanations, etc.? and without question too,


You can believe I accept anything if you want.

Example: I worked for IBM for 4 years. They came out with a machine called a Datamaster 23 which replaced another machine, the 5100. I wanted to know how much faster the new machine was than the old one. I assumed the new one was faster. I wrote my own benchmarks and keyed them in and tested both machines myself. The old machine was almost twice as fast as the new one in both benchmarks.

The only reason I trust White people to tell me the time of day is because it is so easy to check. I have caught White people hiding information from other White people so often it ain't funny. I remember when I was a kid thinking how silly it was for the NOI to go aound talking, "The White Man is The Devil." But the more I have learned the more I have thought, "The White Man isn't the Devil, he isn't smart enough, but the Devil is his Prince. The Prince of LIARS.

The trouble with the NOI is they expect everyone to get emotional about this crap rather adopt cold calculating warfare tactics. Sun Tzu is more my style than either Farrakhan or Malcolm, though I'd sooner listen to Malcolm.

Evolution isn't something that can be tested and repeated like physics experiments so I can't say I know evolution is the case like I know how trnsistors work, but I regard it as an adequate explanation. The palefces have acknowledged they evolved from Africans. At least the ones with functioning brains. ROFL

umbrarchist

ps - I conclude you are in the NOI.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html


yeah appl
umbra, since you never directly answered my question, i won't be answering yours but you can conclude whatever you would like.

other than that, there are plenty of intelligent people who support the NOI, and believe NOI teachings - that should tell people something right there.

just because you can't relate to them doesn't mean anything other than to yourself and it's arrogant of you and/or honest brother to think otherwise. like you two speak for all black people.

malcolm x was no dummy and he would not have been the man that he turned out to be without NOI influence in his life. that should tell people something right there.

but you carry on and i hope you don't bust a blood vessel spitting blood & venom over your disdain for the nation. life is too short and i'm sure you have plenty of other things to be concerned with.
I LOVE MALCOM, AND I LOVE THE MINISTER, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE. ITS EASY TO POINT TO PEOPLES FLAWS, WE ALL HAVE THEM WE ARE HUMAN. I LOOK AT A MANS DEEDS, WHAT DO YOU DO FOR SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF? THATS THE QUESTION. I CAN SEE HOW SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER HAD A FATHER,NEVER HAD ANYONE TO LOVE THEM , SEELING DOPE, ROBBING PEOPLE WOULD JOIN THE NATION. SOMETIMES WHEN YOUR IN THE DARK A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT IS BETTER THAN NO LIGHT. ITS ALL A PROCESS, BUT ONE THING CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE NATION, THEY REFORM THE DOWNTROTTEN, THE CAST ASIDE, THOSE EVERYONE ELSE RUNS FROM, AND GIVES THEM A SENSE OF PRIDE AND SELF RESPECT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BECOME PRODUCTIVE HUMAN BEINGS.

TO BRUSH MALCOM OFF ONE OF OUR PREMIRE INTELLECTS IS SAD. ISLAM WAS HIS RELIGION , IT BROUGHT HIM OUT OF THE DARKNESS, BUT HE WAS BY FAR A PAN AFRICANIST AND BLACK NATIONALIST IN HIS IDEOLOGY.
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
It has, of course, been objectively determined that a Black scientist evolved White people.

It is my bias that keeps me from acknowledging this FACT.


No, it was your STUPIDITY that evolves from your bias (your desire to berate the NOI) that had you stumbling over yourself saying something that showed how you obviously DON'T READ!

And your Title problems only goes to show that you're stupid enough to Judge A Book By It's Cover... Or the title of the thread which had little to do with the book itself or any of the claims the book or the author actually makes.

Your comments were not about 1Miles title. So, I'm laughing @ U.


lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
Your comments were not about 1Miles title. So, I'm laughing @ U.


Be my guest.

The NOI doesn't need me or anyone else to berate it.

It is quite self sufficient.

umbra


And you don't need me to berate you. You do a damn good job of that yourself.

But go ahead and ask another stupid rhetorical question just to make a pure a$$ out of yourself. I mean, it's really not that hard to read a couple of paragraphs. You came off half-cocked only to get dropped by a little carefully placed sentence that DEBUNKS the very line of BS you let come out your mouth.

Now, here's my rhetorical question for you:
Yacub? Is he yo' daddy?

Cause you sho' act like a BIG HEAD mad anti-scientist with the crazy stuff you dream up.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
i read the article, yet i don't see any new info here. it affirms things which have been said in the past re: brother malcolm. basically it re-iterates the contention that his ego was his downfall and implies that his death was somehow his own fault.

what is new about this?


there is plenty "new" in the article, particularly the specific recollections that the brother had about his personal contact with malcolm. his perspective on the impact malcolm had on the lives of bro. jabril and min. farrakhan .... there's plenty "new," in the piece, that i know some of you have never read or heard about before. the thing is, if you go in with a closed mind, looking for what you've seen before and with a predetermined response to what you're going to read - you won't come out of it with anything but what you went in to find. IMO.

there's plenty of new information and perspective there, but honest brother asked, "what am i supposed to be getting out of this?" my answer is - if you didn't get anything out of it, maybe it wasn't meant for you to get anything out of it. there are plenty of others who are gaining from the info so that speaks for itself.

maybe it's just not for you to get anything from it, the benefit of the piece is therefore for other people. *shrug* and hopefully, no one is bothered or intimidated by that.
this comment was made in the interview:

quote:
... The press, they were so slick and used to write all the time, "Malcolm X and his Black Muslims." Malcolm didn't have no Black Muslims, Malcolm was a Black Muslim that was had by Elijah Muhammad but this is a separation they were setting up....


the brother also talked about how, even tho it was "stroke of genius" that malcolm's autobiography has been made required reading in all black studies programs, that also has played a part in keeping a separation going. primarily because the book not only makes malcolm a hero but at the same time drops innuendos that the NOI and elijah muhammad had a hand in his death.

i hope we all have enough intelligence to know that if the government and the powers that be had any actual facts and knowledge that the NOI was responsible, it would have been brought out by now - and looooooong before now.

as it stands, the "white man" has been very successful in his job of dropping a seed then stepping back and watching the "negros" fight over that which was dropped. and it's still going on 40 years later .... which is a shame.

some want to call anyone who speaks from the NOI angle, "biased" and "unobjective" but all of what they are going on is based on the biased and unobjective work of "the white man" who is the one who manufactured the anti-NOI image of malcolm in the first place.

those who accept the golden image of malcolm - even tho they never knew him - act as tho everything the brother did was on point. well, clearly it wasn't. no matter how awesome malcolm was, he was not perfect and everything that went "wrong" in his relationship with the NOI was not any & everybody else's fault but his. he has to bear some of the responsibility for certain things.

for instance, after all the training he received in the NOI about security and checking for weapons prior to meetings, why did he choose - HE CHOOSE - to not allow searches that day at the audobon ballroom? was that the NOI's fault or should the responsibility for that decision be placed on him and whoever was around him telling him it was a good idea?

but "the white man" would have us to believe that everything that went wrong for malcolm was the fault of other people. sadly, some black people are glad to go along with the mythology and allow that to keep a separation going that really doesn't need to be there.
quote:
OK .. I read it ... What am I supposed to be getting from this? ... that the real Malcolm had a mind of his own ... and that's why the NOI had to blow him away ... even though he was so well loved by them?

I agree with this sentiment.

I read the article... critically. Considering that the article was written to dispell the mythology offered by people who teach about Malcolm but did not know him, you would think there would be some NEW information about Malcolm offered to the reader. There was not.

Personally... I am very attracted to the NOI and the New Black Panther Party for that matter. But I am not the kind of brother who can be lead by men... march in a line... wear para military clothing... wear a bow tie while selling newspapers at the traffic light... get permission to date... And I don't have the time to run and check in with some other cat who knows less than I before I speak publically.

Malcolm was bigger than the NOI. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying that.
quote:
if the government and the powers that be had any actual facts and knowledge that the NOI was responsible, it would have been brought out by now - and looooooong before now.


http://www.criticalreading.com/malcolm.htm
quote:
The man with the shotgun, identified by police as 22-year-old Talmadge Hayer of Paterson, N.J., dashed down a side aisle to the stairway exit from the second floor ballroom. From the landing, one of Malcolm's bodyguards winged him in the thigh with a .45-caliber slug. Howling in pursuit ("Kill the bastard!"), the ballroom crowd caught Hayer on the sidewalk, mauled him, and broke his ankle before police rescued him.

Hayer was charged with homicide. Five days later, police picked up a karate-trained Muslim enforcer, Norman 3X Butler, 26, as suspect No. 2.


I saw a television interview of Hayer in prison long, long ago in which he admitted killing Malcolm but he said that the two other men who were convicted with him had nothing to do with it, but he wouldn't say who the guilty ones were. If I was in prison with him and I hadn't done it I would be trying to kill his a$$.

In everyones life there are important and trivial details. People don't always agree on what those trivial details were. I regard the ones you are mentioning as trivial and not worth my time reading. I jumped around skimming parts of that article but I saw nothing to indicate it was worth my time reading completely. I was not about to read it just to prove anything to you. I am glad an independent party told you like it was but I don't expect it to change your perspective. I learned long ago that NOI fanatics are like that. The emotional stress of Black life in America can do this to people and that is what I presume happened to Malcolm for a while, and that is why he got involved with the NOI.

I'm sure Farrakahn must love playing second fiddle to a dead man that can never go away.

Bruce Perry also did a biography which I have read.
http://www.stationhill.org/perry.html
Personally I take for granted there will be greater objectivity from someone not in the NOI.

umbrarchist
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
AND?

What did the behavior of the press have to do with MALCOLM?


i don't know. who said the press' behavior had anything to do with malcolm. what was said was this:

quote:
...this is a separation they were setting up...


that was the point. it was also pointed out that the separation continues to this day .... decades after malcolm x has passed on.

on another note, it is said that malcolm was feeding info to the press which indicates that the behavior of the press, in some instances, had a lot to do with malcolm.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
i read the article, yet i don't see any new info here. it affirms things which have been said in the past re: brother malcolm. basically it re-iterates the contention that his ego was his downfall and implies that his death was somehow his own fault.

what is new about this?


there is plenty "new" in the article, particularly the specific recollections that the brother had about his personal contact with malcolm. his perspective on the impact malcolm had on the lives of bro. jabril and min. farrakhan .... there's plenty "new," in the piece, that i know some of you have never read or heard about before. the thing is, if you go in with a closed mind, looking for what you've seen before and with a predetermined response to what you're going to read - you won't come out of it with anything but what you went in to find. IMO.

there's plenty of new information and perspective there, but honest brother asked, "what am i supposed to be getting out of this?" my answer is - if you didn't get anything out of it, maybe it wasn't meant for you to get anything out of it. there are plenty of others who are gaining from the info so that speaks for itself.

maybe it's just not for you to get anything from it, the benefit of the piece is therefore for other people. *shrug* and hopefully, no one is bothered or intimidated by that.

I know you think so... but to students of our history, there is nothing new here. The only thing "NEW" is the face that goes with this article.

I was remember the current Minister say something along the lines of, "let those of us who knew Malcolm, deal with his legacy." And therein lies the problem after the death of a historical figure. I am sure Malcolm would have something to say about some of these "I knew Malcolm when" Negroes if he was alive.

At the end of the day, it is an issue of credibility. And from where I stand, the NOI lacks credibility how they disseminate information about Malcolm.
umbra, after getting clowned so bad by nmaginate i'm surprised you're still up in here adding more stuff that is clownable.

nothing you posted proves the point you're trying to make. an individual member of the NOI acting on his own does not make the entire NOI, or elijah muhammad, guilty of anything.

and again, if the government had of had anything to convict elijah muhammad on - they would have done it swiftly. if they had anything to convict min. farrakhan they would have been done thrown the man behind bars, long ago.

stop the madness!
shango, just a reminder of what was posted previously. you, nor honest brother, nor umbra speak for all black people and just because you 3 can't relate to the NOI - that speaks only for you 3. i've had more responses from people who say they gained something from the article than say they didn't gain - so that speaks for itself.

just because you and 2-3 others didn't get anything "new" or beneficial from the info - big deal! you all don't represent anybody other than yourselves unless you are guilty of what was pointed out in the article: thinking more of yourselves than you ought.

now, i get your point and i'm not interested in debating back and forth because you have a problem with the info that was presented. i'm sure you have more important things in life to be concerned with.

PS

you all "kill" me acting as tho you know more about malcolm's history than people who were actually there. LOL. you know nothing of his history other than what was spoon fed to you by "the white man." i hope you are as skeptical of all other malcolm-info that you take in as you are of that which comes from the NOI.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
AND?

What did the behavior of the press have to do with MALCOLM?


i don't know. who said the press' behavior had anything to do with malcolm. what was said was this:

quote:
...this is a separation they were setting up...


that was the point. it was also pointed out that the separation continues to this day .... decades after malcolm x has passed on.

on another note, it is said that malcolm was feeding info to the press which indicates that the behavior of the press, in some instances, had a lot to do with malcolm.

Not me, brother. I know how to read.

The quote YOU provided dealt with what the PRESS reported. I know white folks were setting up the NOI. This is a fact. The FICTION, IMO, is that Malcolm knowingly played a role in this separation... this is the MYTH I beleive has been created by the NOI.
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
Not me, brother. I know how to read.


first, i'm not a brother.

quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
The quote YOU provided dealt with what the PRESS reported.


yes, and that quote had nothing to do with what malcolm was doing. you brought that into it, set up a straw man argument, so you could knock it down.

the quote you responded to had nothing to do with malcolm's behavior - so why did you try to bring that into it?

quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
I know white folks were setting up the NOI. This is a fact. The FICTION, IMO, is that Malcolm knowingly played a role in this separation... this is the MYTH I beleive has been created by the NOI.


well, thank you for saying it's your OPINION because your opinion may not be in line with reality and fact.

people who were there know specific things that malcolm was doing. you don't know those things so who should we believe - people who knew malcolm and who were there or people who weren't there, didn't know him, and have a bias toward the NOI which prevents them from being objective about the situation?
1Mile... (if I've missed, pardon me)... You should just admit your NOI bias and be done with it. I have no problem with the NOI and I'm in complete agreement with ZAKAR's statement.

And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview. But, being honest, we know or at least I know this is something that does differ from some of the prevailing White-washed narrative:

quote:
They try to say that Malcolm went over there and saw White Muslims that he had never seen before. When he went over there the first time, [he] saw the reality of the fact that Islam is the brotherhood of man and that the purpose of Islam is to bring about a universal brotherhood. That's not something that Elijah Muhammad didn't know but you're not gonna have brotherhood when you have people who will not submit to God and the equality of things [unless] they are in an exalted position.

Malcolm was no stranger to what was going on in the Middle East. [He] had a mindset, ideas and things that he was trying to do before time. The White man tried to utilize Malcolm to keep a permanent separation between those who admired [him] and those who tried to follow Elijah Muhammad, and now Min. Farrakhan.


Me, I was looking for more of a personal perspective from someone who knew him on a personal level and would treat the story like a biography and not some old tired defense of Elijah Muhammad. That, he can keep. He can defend Elijah Muhammad without the ploy of acting like he's going to provide new, different or untold (hardly known) insights into The Life & Times of our dear brother.

Anyway... The popular mythology (which doesn't isn't necessarily "popular" or accepted here amongst a core of rather astute brothers/sisters) tries to spin Malcolm's HAJJ experience into something that it was not. That's why ZAKAR's statement is ON POINT!

If AWM presents factoids about how Malcolm evolved with definitive quotes from Malcolm on substantive things like that (as opposed to the vague: "Brother Randolph, with what I've seen and what I've heard, if I were to turn back Allah would be justified in dropping me off of the Empire State Building on top of my head.")... then there is indeed value to be had in him writing this book.

But, if it's to constantly try to affirm Malcolm's love for Elijah Muhammad as a way to try run down the same ole tired Apologetics for the NOI... then whatever little tidbits he has to offer will get lost in the sea his NOI perspective he can't remove himself from.

So, I'd have to side with Umbra when it comes to that. If AWM is going to pretend to give a "true" history, Malcolm can't be a way for him to try to exonerate whatever he feels to be the flawed perceptions people have about the NOI.

But if the book is more "everyday with Malcolm" tidbits like that of an biography (as opposed to an NOI Apologetic) then even with his clear NOI bias the book is worth it.


But go ahead... Admit that you are NOI, if you are and cut with the deception.
another thing. some of us evidently aren't as up on the history as we claim. malcolm played a big role in his separation from the NOI as he was the one who left, took his charges against elijah muhammad to the press and started his own thing.

malcolm was not put out of the nation. after he made the "chickens coming home to roost comment," in defiance of elijah muhammad telling his ministers to say nothing in regards to kennedy's assassination, he was restricted from speaking in the public. that is not equivalent to him being put out and he was not separated from the NOI because of that.

later he left, of his own will and volition, i.e. he chose to separate himself which means he had everything to do with that. for folks to say it's fiction that malcolm "Malcolm knowingly played a role in this separation".... well, i have to wonder if such person knows what in the world they are talking about.

;-) @ shango
nmaginate, i'm not coming with any deception. it should be obvious that i am a supporter of the NOI - but that has nothing to do with the topic.

also, the brother who was interviewed did not select the title of the article so don't put that on him.

other than that, if you didn't benefit from the info - that makes about 4 of you in this thread but that's still less than the number of people who have expressed appreciation for the piece. so ...... please save the unfounded insinuations and allegations for someone else. deceptive is not my style but maybe it's yours since you want to be so quick to accuse me of that?
quote:
umbra, after getting clowned so bad by nmaginate i'm surprised you're still up in here adding more stuff that is clownable.


I wouldn't expect someone from the NOI to even comprehend what I regard as clowned. When I was in grammar school the kids in Ida B. Wells projects called me Goofus every day. I won a National Merit Scholarship my senior year in high school. There is an expired MENSA membership card in my wallet. I took their IQ test to get in back in the 80s. I didn't have to take the test, all I had to do was show them my SAT score but I took the test out of curiosity anyway.

Nmaginate is always bringing up reading when he is getting on people. Do you think he has ever repaird a class AB, complementary symmetry direct coupled amplifier with a differential input? It has been almost 30 years since I was doing that on a regular basis. I switched from repairing stereos to computers in 1978. I was compiling a C program to do a job for Comcast last night.

You and Nmaginate will have come up with a whole new style of insults for dealing with us BIG HEAD people. You are mostly just wasting your time.

umbrarchist
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

nmaginate, i'm not coming with any deception. it should be obvious that i am a supporter of the NOI - but that has nothing to do with the topic.


It has everything to do with the topic, especially when you try to pawn this stuff off:

people who knew malcolm and who were there or people who weren't there, didn't know him, and have a bias toward the NOI which prevents them from being objective about the situation

You were PROJECTING. Shango and a number of others said little upon which your label of "bias towards the NOI" is founded.

Now this doesn't have anything to do with "the situation":

quote:
umbrarchist

Nmaginate is always bringing up reading when he is getting on people. Do you think he has ever repaird a class AB, complementary symmetry direct coupled amplifier with a differential input?


lol

quote:
other than that, if you didn't benefit from the info - that makes about 4 of you in this thread but that's still less than the number of people who have expressed appreciation for the piece.


And those who "expressed appreciation"... NOI? or what? Who are you referencing? Please try again. I expressed appreciation for you posting the info. Now what is your problem?


quote:
so ...... please save the unfounded insinuations and allegations for someone else. deceptive is not my style but maybe it's yours since you want to be so quick to accuse me of that?


Nope! You apparently did not reveal your pro-NOI bias. My "insinuations" and "allegations" were validated when you said:

it should be obvious that i am a supporter

You should have said you were as soon as Umbra asked you:

Posted July 22, 2006 07:12 PM
Are you a member of the NOI?
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
You and Nmaginate will have come up with a whole new style of insults for dealing with us BIG HEAD people. You are mostly just wasting your time.

umbrarchist


still LOL @ you, umbra. based on your previous comments you are somewhere around 54 years old and it's sad to see that it seems you feel a need to flaunt your so-called intelligence and educational achievement. is that what you need to do to feel good about yourself and to make it seem that you're somehow better than other people?

what's more sad is that you really think someone has time or the desire to come up with a new style of insults to deal with you "big head" people. still LOL and shaking my head.

and you're 54 years old? you say i'm wasting my time but i already told you that i wasn't going to waste time with your runaround. if i'm wasting time, what are you so threatened about that you're all up in here raising a ruckus?

stop the madness!
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

It has everything to do with the topic, especially when you try to pawn this stuff off:

people who knew malcolm and who were there or people who weren't there, didn't know him, and have a bias toward the NOI which prevents them from being objective about the situation

You were PROJECTING. Shango and a number of others said little upon which your label of "bias towards the NOI" is founded.


well, i disagree with you. honest brother and umbra made their bias known and you even specifically said umbra was showing his bias, didn't you?

when i speak, i'm not just speaking of people on this board. i'm sure you know, as well as i, that there are plenty of other people who are biased against the NOI and speak as umbra and honest brother, and even shango speak.

i still say that knowing whether or not i'm NOI member is irrelevant to the discussion. the topic is malcolm x .... not me.

and again, why use the term of me trying to "pawn" something off - is that what you yourself are guilty of and that's why you're making the allegation toward me?

also, i made it very clear why i did not respond to umbra's question. when folks want to come with all kinds of questions for me but then avoid answering my questions to them, i don't waste my time. i believe i explained that clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:


well, i disagree with you. honest brother and umbra made their bias known and you even specifically said umbra was showing his bias, didn't you?


I said "Shango and a number of others"... That did not mean ALL. You have Shango, myself and ZAKAR and, perhaps, NegroSpiritual. You can't pin an anti-NOI bias on either one of us (which is why you named who you named).

BTW... Sorry rhetorical questions pretty much get dismissed out-of-hand with me. You either make your argument sound or you don't. This one was so weak, you knew you had to beg me to validate you by way of deception and suggestion.

Implicit in my statement was the exclusion of those who registered obvious bias. Please get a clue.

quote:
i still say that knowing whether or not i'm NOI member is irrelevant to the discussion. the topic is malcolm x .... not me.


Nope. You'd done a whole lot of talking about the "people who are biased against the NOI". The "topic" is no more about them than you yet you run your mouth freely about them and the bias they bring to the table. It's only honest and fitting of someone with INTEGRITY to state and own their bias upfront (authors of books, etc. do that all the time, it's like ethical or something) if for no other reason than as a point of reference as to know where the person is coming from and what has shaped their views.

That you see it as something that would be "off topic" even as you've repeatedly talked about NOT Malcolm X but the anti-NOI bias, real or perceived, from posters here only shows even more deception on your part. You want to pretend like your bias doesn't impact your perspective in the discussion that grew out of folks reacting to what they perceived the article to be about. Sorry, but your pro-NOI bias has everything to do with the that discussion. But I'll let you show me how many times you kept the subject on Malcolm as opposed to you focusing on things, people "irrelevant" to the discussion.

quote:
and again, why use the term of me trying to "pawn" something off - is that what you yourself are guilty of and that's why you're making the allegation toward me?


SHOW & PROVE. Don't be a coward and make sissy suggestions. Demonstrate how I'm "guilty" of anything you want to erect as a (weak) defense or diversion from your cowardly, deceptive ways.

State you biases upfront... and clearly especially when asked. It's not that hard and your bias is "no secret" and permeates this discussion you've participated in.
quote:
umbra made their bias known and you even specifically said umbra was showing his bias


I don't have any problem admitting a bias about the NOI. Their "mythology" spaeks for itself.

Look at the technology we are using to communicat on this message board. The problem with my education is that my REAL EDUCATION I had to do myself. The nuns didn't teach crap about science at my grammar school but I built a telegraph for a science project for some public school kids.

Malcom X and MLK were both killed before the moon landing and this technology we are using is partly the result of the space program.

I was on a Black Muslim website years ago called Seventh Family, I think they shortened it to Fam, and they were going on and on about Allah. Any discussion about technology. NO!

Malcolm is DEAD. Where do we go from here?

umbrarchist
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

I said "Shango and a number of others"... That did not mean ALL. You have Shango, myself and ZAKAR and, perhaps, NegroSpiritual. You can't pin an anti-NOI bias on either one of us (which is why you named who you named).


what are you even talking about? what are you even trying to argue about when you came in the thread thanking me for the information? you didn't need to know my NOI status then so why all of a sudden are you acting like you got turned out ... and you need to know? you didn't need to know when you first came in here.

quote:
BTW... Sorry rhetorical questions pretty much get dismissed out-of-hand with me. You either make your argument sound or you don't. This one was so weak, you knew you had to beg me to validate you by way of deception and suggestion.

Implicit in my statement was the exclusion of those who registered obvious bias. Please get a clue.


well then you should get a clue. if there were people in here who expressed bias - clearly - why did you need clarification? duhh!

quote:
Nope. You'd done a whole lot of talking about the "people who are biased against the NOI". The "topic" is no more about them than you yet you run your mouth freely about them and the bias they bring to the table.


please review all of my posts in this thread and then get back with me on this.

quote:
It's only honest and fitting of someone with INTEGRITY to state and own their bias upfront (authors of books, etc. do that all the time, it's like ethical or something) if for no other reason than as a point of reference as to know where the person is coming from and what has shaped their views.

That you see it as something that would be "off topic" even as you've repeatedly talked about NOT Malcolm X but the anti-NOI bias, real or perceived, from posters here only shows even more deception on your part. You want to pretend like your bias doesn't impact your perspective in the discussion that grew out of folks reacting to what they perceived the article to be about. Sorry, but your pro-NOI bias has everything to do with the that discussion. But I'll let you show me how many times you kept the subject on Malcolm as opposed to you focusing on things, people "irrelevant" to the discussion.


YAWN!!! i'm not pretending anything. when i said it should be obvious that i'm an NOI supporter - that should indicate that i know that my comments come across as one who supports the NOI.

quote:
SHOW & PROVE. Don't be a coward and make sissy suggestions. Demonstrate how I'm "guilty" of anything you want to erect as a (weak) defense or diversion from your cowardly, deceptive ways.

State you biases upfront... and clearly especially when asked. It's not that hard and your bias is "no secret" and permeates this discussion you've participated in.


again, what are you even talking about? you've created this great big straw man argument and you're just flailing your arms tearing that straw out. do your thing because i don't have time.

you think what you want to think about me - i don't give a damn. you say what you want to say about me - i don't give a damn. you weren't spitting all that when you came in this thread thanking me for the info but now you've flip flopped in a cowardly and sissified manner. do your thing because like rhett butler said, "frankly my dear, i don't give a damn!"
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

I said "Shango and a number of others"... That did not mean ALL. You have Shango, myself and ZAKAR and, perhaps, NegroSpiritual. You can't pin an anti-NOI bias on either one of us (which is why you named who you named).


what are you even talking about? what are you even trying to argue about when you came in the thread thanking me for the information? you didn't need to know my NOI status then so why all of a sudden are you acting like you got turned out ... and you need to know?


First, thanks for admitting how your "ya'll just against the NOI" BS is just that. Complete BS. I'm "even talking about" how your silly little comments didn't and don't make sense; how you did not contradict or contend with what I said even as you tried to act like you did.

The discussion "turned" away from the article itself and you got to talking OFF SUBJECT. That's why your status is important. Umbra was clear in stating his... What really is your problem stating yours, clearly?

Don't cry to me. I dismiss that stuff out of hand too.


quote:
well then you should get a clue. if there were people in here who expressed biasp. - clearly - why did you need clarification? duhh!


Make your statement follow... I said: "REGISTERED OBVIOUS BIAS".

GET A CLUE and figure out how to make a sound argument not just an argument that sounds...

quote:
when i said it should be obvious that i'm an NOI supporter - that should indicate that i know that my comments come across as one who supports the NOI.


When you were asked a direct question... YOU made a convenient excuse not to answer it. I guess that's what you're talking about. It should have been obvious to me that you wouldn't answer because....

quote:
you think what you want to think about me - i don't give a damn.


Dude, like I said... don't cry to me. I don't think anything about you except for how you've tried to run this game here where you wanted to discredit others for their bias but don't want yours to be in play in the discussion.
Well, I do think you were a bit ashamed to announce your NOI support/membership plainly when asked because of whatever YOU THINK people think about the NOI.

Yep. That's about it. That's everything that had anything to do with things that went down in this thread. And I still thank you for the information and still stand firm on saying you won't get away with setting Double-Standards in the way things get discussed. Absolutely no contradiction there.


quote:



Also, again... What's the title of AWM's book?


quote:
Last edited {1}
quote:
what are you so threatened about that you're all up in here raising a ruckus?


Who's threatened.

The internet is a new form of entertainment. It beats the hell out of television. I normally have 6 forums open in firefox and am using 3 different handles.

The people in China talk all kinds of wierd stuff about economics. I bet most of them never heard of Malcom X.

umbra
ngaminate, abdul wazir muhammad doesn't have a book. what's the name of yours?

also, in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself and my need to even feed into what you're trying to keep going. you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information .... then later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it. what's next? are you going to flip flop back to where you started? i'm thru with the game you're trying to run but if you want to keep running in a circle by yourself, feel free.

i've explained my NOI status many-a-time on various message boards but i rarely go against my message board rule that i don't bother with anyone's questions who is avoiding mine. i've been living by that on message boards for a mighty long time. now if you have a need to make up a myth about me making an excuse not to answer a question - do your thing and be happy about it! just know that you have chosen to operate off of erroneous ASSumptions.

you've made some ASSumptions about why you THINK i did this or that, or why i said or didn't say this or that but again, your ASSumptions are incorrect. you're welcome, however, to run all the way to nigeria and back with them. LOL

do your thing N.

hasta~
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
TO BRUSH MALCOM OFF ONE OF OUR PREMIRE INTELLECTS IS SAD.


there was nothing in the article that suggested malcolm should be brushed off. where did you get that impression? there was nothing posted in this thread that suggests he should be brushed off so i'm curious as to where that came from.

what is being suggested is that everybody on all sides of this reflect on the possibility or reality that neither extreme is representative of real balance when it comes to this discussion.

those who think malcolm was a perfect saint - need to get real. those who think the NOI was perfect, need to get real. those who think the government didn't play both ends against the middle need to get real. that's what really needs to be looked at - IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself


And your book matters to me... HOW?

quote:
you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information .... then later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it.


Nope. I pointed out what was a point I thought was worth emphasizing and why. So your claim that I said "I didn't get anything out of it"... Well, it's FALSE and obviously stated becauses you got this ridiculous notion that there are some kind of teams here - you trying to act like I switched sides or whatever your problem is with people being critical of the content of the piece when it hardly lived up to it's billing.

quote:
what's next? are you going to flip flop back to where you started?


Dismissed out of hand. You have no argument. But keep posing questions that the weak and aimless do.


quote:
now if you have a need to make up a myth about me making an excuse not to answer a question - do your thing and be happy about it!


More of that Weak & Aimless stuff. "IF"... It's still an excuse no matter what your rule is. That info., you providing it, wasn't contingent on whatever thing you and Umbra had going on. Again, it's about INTEGRITY.

Again, you tried to play that Double-Standard game and lost.
well then N, if my integrity with you is non-existent,i should expect for you to move along and find other people here to interact with that you believe have integrity.

and let me correct myself. you didn't say you didn't get anything out of the interview, you said this after initially coming in giving thanks for the info:

quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.


other than that ...... would you like the final word in our exchange?
Peace...

I am a registered Fruit Of Islam in the Nation Of Islam. Unfortunately, I missed most of this discussion..I did not really see this thread moving into it's present direction until now.

Minister Farrakhan stood with Betty Shabazz before she died to publically refute those who wish to divide the black community on the issue of Malcolm X and the NOI.

To those outside the Nation Of Islam there will always be questions, however, to those of us in the ranks this issue is crystal clear. Malcolm was an FOI..He was not only a member of the Nation, He was one of the great pioneers of the work. Malcolm was a victim of a plot created by the enemy of the rise of Black people...I have read the words of Malcolm himself, and the words of the FBI agents who visited Malcolm in an to seperate him from his teacher, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad.

There are elements in the black struggle who love this divisive talk. They love to raise the history of Malcolm as a way to discredit the NOI and it's leaders...They do this out of jealousy and hatred.



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
1Mile... (if I've missed, pardon me)... You should just admit your NOI bias and be done with it. I have no problem with the NOI and I'm in complete agreement with ZAKAR's statement.

And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview. But, being honest, we know or at least I know this is something that does differ from some of the prevailing White-washed narrative:

quote:
They try to say that Malcolm went over there and saw White Muslims that he had never seen before. When he went over there the first time, [he] saw the reality of the fact that Islam is the brotherhood of man and that the purpose of Islam is to bring about a universal brotherhood. That's not something that Elijah Muhammad didn't know but you're not gonna have brotherhood when you have people who will not submit to God and the equality of things [unless] they are in an exalted position.

Malcolm was no stranger to what was going on in the Middle East. [He] had a mindset, ideas and things that he was trying to do before time. The White man tried to utilize Malcolm to keep a permanent separation between those who admired [him] and those who tried to follow Elijah Muhammad, and now Min. Farrakhan.


Me, I was looking for more of a personal perspective from someone who knew him on a personal level and would treat the story like a biography and not some old tired defense of Elijah Muhammad. That, he can keep. He can defend Elijah Muhammad without the ploy of acting like he's going to provide new, different or untold (hardly known) insights into The Life & Times of our dear brother.

Anyway... The popular mythology (which doesn't isn't necessarily "popular" or accepted here amongst a core of rather astute brothers/sisters) tries to spin Malcolm's HAJJ experience into something that it was not. That's why ZAKAR's statement is ON POINT!




My integrity is RIGHT THERE!!

NEXT!!!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
TO BRUSH MALCOM OFF ONE OF OUR PREMIRE INTELLECTS IS SAD.


there was nothing in the article that suggested malcolm should be brushed off. where did you get that impression? there was nothing posted in this thread that suggests he should be brushed off so i'm curious as to where that came from.

what is being suggested is that everybody on all sides of this reflect on the possibility or reality that neither extreme is representative of real balance when it comes to this discussion.

those who think malcolm was a perfect saint - need to get real. those who think the NOI was perfect, need to get real. those who think the government didn't play both ends against the middle need to get real. that's what really needs to be looked at - IMO.


First, the part in bold? What's that got to do with ZAKAR's point?

Also, how does this article forward your "Get Real" idea?

Clearly, it doesn't. But you can point out how it does.
yes, moving along ...... the link to the full article can be found here: http://bhonline.org/index.php?topic=130.0

and for anyone who didn't know, i'm the same poster who put up the "a modern day moses and aaron" thread on the spirituality board - a topic that is also NOI related. those of you who knew that probably figured out that i am an NOI supporter and didn't unnecessarily stumble over this thread.

those who did find an excuse to stumble ... that's on you. one thing about it, if you hadn't used my NOI position as an excuse to cause a ruckus, it's probably a sure thing that you would have come with some other excuse to divert attention from the topic and onto yourself. ;-)

LOL
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
it's surprising that someone so intelligent would have joined in the first place.



I am a registered MGT in the Nation of Islam. Many here are aware that I rarely find it necessary to include my thoughts where people have made up their minds, or in particular have alternative agendas. I find this a complete waste of my time and mental energy.

However, though it was my initial intent to stay out of this thread, the direction it has taken has gone down farther than expected.

I must say that we all carry a significant amount of intelligence within that has not been cultivated or utilized within society. It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



Peace,
Khalliqa
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
it's surprising that someone so intelligent would have joined in the first place.



I must say that we all carry a significant amount of intelligence within that has not been cultivated or utilized within society. It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



Peace,
Khalliqa



Fair enough ... eloquently stated ... but why pick on my tiny contribution to this thread? ... Smile
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:

Fair enough ... eloquently stated ... but why pick on my tiny contribution to this thread? ... Smile


*erm* because you're "safe"... Big Grin

Seriously, I wasn't picking on you... I couldn't continue to watch and say nothing....


and I was praying you wouldn't mind...


Peace,
Khalliqa



relax ... you're safe ... cool ...
quote:
...what is being suggested is that everybody on all sides of this reflect on the possibility or reality that neither extreme is representative of real balance when it comes to this discussion...


for clarification purposes, when i made the above statement i was not saying that the article suggested the above. the "suggestion" made is mine and reflects one of my purposes for this topic, however, if you read the article/interview closely, you will see that bro. wazir does not make excuses for the jealousy that malcolm fell victim to from some in the NOI. nor does he blast malcolm to hell or "brush him off." his position is very balanced, in my opinion, and there is nothing in the article that should be said to have been coming from the angle of anything negative.

he stated facts and recollections as he remembers them and as he experienced them. he shared information about malcolm's brothers - even tho it wasn't very much info. even tho some say they got absolutely nothing new out of the article - it would really be surprising to me if they knew any of the information that bro. wazir shared about malcolm's brothers and what happened with them after malcolm's death.

but anyway, just some clarification.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:

It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



And that has NOT been an issue (Umbra not included) and, no matter how eloquent and On Point, doesn't go to speak to the Alternative Agendas that would seek to over emphasize that fact and then flipped that (per their agenda) into something else.


quote:
his position is very balanced, in my opinion, and there is nothing in the article that should be said to have been coming from the angle of anything negative.

he stated facts and recollections as he remembers them and as he experienced them.


And that "balance" thing is in dispute. My initial post highlighting how the interview intro. termed it as a "perspective" rather one that was "objective" still stands. Since the pretense was to speak about his experiences and give some type of rendition of Malcolm's life and times then there is little "balance" when he kept inserting Elijah Muhammad into the mix so frequently.

It comes off as the same ole Apologetics.

quote:
he shared information about malcolm's brothers - even tho it wasn't very much info. even tho some say they got absolutely nothing new out of the article


The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong. Your uncontrolled bias and sensitivity had you speaking falsehoods.

Indeed, you reached for the same exaggeration machine those you took issue with did. And, somehow, when I presented a nuanced view, because I wasn't totally "on your side", you wanted to say I "flipped flopped."

Now, what brought on this "Get Real" stuff because plenty of folks have essentially said just that about the interview and didn't see it as "balanced".

I feel like brothers/sisters with/for the NOI who want to speak on this should "Get Real" and at least attempt to take a dispassionate approach to telling their story, about the NOI, Elijah Muhammad (who wasn't the topic of conversation but was always prominent in it) and Malcolm. That's why I suggested the biography approach or expected that type of treatment.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:

It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



And that has NOT been an issue (Umbra not included) and, no matter how eloquent and On Point, doesn't go to speak to the Alternative Agendas that would seek to over emphasize that fact and then flipped that (per their agenda) into something else.


Yes, Sir Duly Noted...

quote:


I feel like brothers/sisters with/for the NOI who want to speak on this should "Get Real" and at least attempt to take a dispassionate approach to telling their story, about the NOI, Elijah Muhammad (who wasn't the topic of conversation but was always prominent in it) and Malcolm. That's why I suggested the biography approach or expected that type of treatment.


This dialogue was not started by a member of the NOI... but a supporter of the NOI, supporter is not someone in the ranks of NOI who can speak for NOI, only about their own perceptions of NOI, those of us in the ranks of the NOI do not approach such subjects this way.....

I am not completely sure of the OP's intent here.... just what I observe as a link to a new board with a controversial article that offers little to those who have concrete opinions regarding this issue...

This is an issue that has been handled by the Minister before via satellite, press conference, talk shows etc....

Our, NOI, focus has been unity.... not divisiveness... hence my initial statement above...

I will cease to comment further on this matter.... I have only entered this conversation because of other things that were said that I simply wished to comment on....


Peace,
Khalliqa
N, i'm not sure why you continue to try to engage me - someone you think has no integrity. i know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversation, dialogue or anything else going with them.

i mean really, this is my response to your second post to me:

quote:
nmaginate, i'm not coming with any deception. it should be obvious that i am a supporter of the NOI - but that has nothing to do with the topic.

also, the brother who was interviewed did not select the title of the article so don't put that on him.

other than that, if you didn't benefit from the info - that makes about 4 of you in this thread but that's still less than the number of people who have expressed appreciation for the piece. so ...... please save the unfounded insinuations and allegations for someone else. deceptive is not my style but maybe it's yours since you want to be so quick to accuse me of that?


you came at me accusing me of deception when you don't even know me. you, nor anybody else in this thread who would be found dropping innocent looking seeds while claiming the muslim title, knows what my motives were/are in this. you've made some ASSumptions. you come at me accusing me of deception and expect a hearty welcome? and then you try to portray yourself as some equitable person? then you were found asking me for proof of something about you when you had no proof about what you insinuated about me?

these are the types of games that i don't make a lot of time for. if you want to make ASSumptions, erroneous ones at that, and base your actions off of them, i'm not going to stop you. nor am i going to be found trying to change your mind. no, you do your thing.

you and i view things differently and i don't have a problem respecting that you don't see things as i do. there's nothing to go back and forth about - you view things your way and i view them mine. the problem is when you come in with your ASSumptions and try to act like they're reality. no, i don't like that.

quote:

The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong.


would you please point out where i did this. that's why i say i don't even know WTH you are talking about. where did i claim any such thing about your position? most of my response to you had to do with you and your ASSumptions about me.

quote:

Your uncontrolled bias and sensitivity had you speaking falsehoods.


what falsehoods did i speak? i just pointed out how you were the one speaking false statements and ASSumptions about me.

quote:

Indeed, you reached for the same exaggeration machine those you took issue with did. And, somehow, when I presented a nuanced view, because I wasn't totally "on your side", you wanted to say I "flipped flopped."


again, i really don't know WTH you're talking about. i think it's a valid point that i brought up about you coming in the thread saying thanks for the info, and then later you're found saying something to the effect that little of value was in the interview. what was the point of saying thanks?

quote:

Now, what brought on this "Get Real" stuff because plenty of folks have essentially said just that about the interview and didn't see it as "balanced".


and you're still at. you're telling me WHY i made the "get real" statement and like i said, do your thing, i'm not going to try to stop you or convince you that your delusions are not correct. go ahead with it but don't be upset that i don't let your ASSumptions, delusions and repitition define my reality. in other words, your perception brother is not my reality and is not necessarily anybody's reality - not even your own.

quote:
I feel like brothers/sisters with/for the NOI who want to speak on this should "Get Real" and at least attempt to take a dispassionate approach to telling their story, about the NOI, Elijah Muhammad (who wasn't the topic of conversation but was always prominent in it) and Malcolm. That's why I suggested the biography approach or expected that type of treatment.


well, i never claimed to be a rep for the NOI and i never would claim that. the title of the piece was "the true history of malcolm x & the NOI" and since much of that history had a lot to do with elijah muhammad, no one should be surprised that that name will appear in abundance in the discussion.

now, if you find i have no integrity in your eyes, as i find you have none in mine, it would seem to be more sensible for you to move on and find others to conversate with.

okay?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

N, i'm not sure why you continue to try to engage me - someone you think has no integrity. i know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversasion, dialogue or anything else going with them.


Yet, you said:
in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself

But you're still in this "conversation" with me. Go figure. Roll Eyes

quote:
you came at me accusing me of deception when you don't even know me.


And that would matter... HOW?
I don't need to "know you" to assess what you've said and done here.

Moving on...

quote:
you've made some ASSumptions. you come at me accusing me of deception and expect a hearty welcome?


Where was my "hearty welcome" statement at? C'mon dude.

quote:
and then you try to portray yourself as some equitqable person?


I called my view/comments "nuanced". You can call them whatever fits whatever you're trying to do with all this laughable stuff. Very laughable.

quote:
these are the types of games that i don't make a lot of time for.


Yet you're wasting your time and mine with this posin' BS:

if you want to make ASSumptions, erroneous ones at that, and base your actions off of them, i'm not going to stop you. nor am i going to be found trying to change your mind. no, you do your thing.

you and i view things differently and i don't have a problem respecting that you don't see things as i do. there's nothing to go back and forth about - you view things your way and i view them mine. the problem is when you come in with your ASSumptions and try to act like they're reality. no, i don't like that.




quote:
The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong.

would you please point out where i did this.


Talk about games... Don't catch yourself in the SHAME, 1Mile:

quote:
Posted July 23, 2006 02:00 PM

...in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself and my need to even feed into what you're trying to keep going. you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information .... then later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it. what's next? are you going to flip flop back to where you started? i'm thru with the game you're trying to run but if you want to keep running in a circle by yourself, feel free.



Here it is again... This is what you said:
"you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information ...later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it..."

That WHERE... That was the first of a double-post on 3. That's WHERE.

quote:
where did i claim any such thing about your position?
N, i already stated previously in this thread that i am not a brother which means i'm also not a "dude." if you know that, and you're just being immature - that's on you, otherwise, you can cease referring to me as "dude."

next, as far as me saying you came in giving a thanks for the info and then later were found saying you got absolutely nothing out of it .... i didn't put the words in quotes, so i was not directly quoting you but these were your words:

quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.


now, if you got something out of the interview, i'm sure even you will admit that is not indicated by your own words.

now, if that's all you're tripping over and that's your example of me trying to lump you into a category with others or telling falsehoods, you know what i say....

do your thing. i don't have anymore time to waste.
Ha!! C'mon, dudette!

You go from claiming you didn't say "I got absolutely nothing out of the article" lumping me in with people who said they didn't to trying to play dumb like my statement saying "there really wasn't MUCH..." = "I got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of it..."

Toooooooo funny.

I mean, it's not easy to do that math.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING = 0
Not MUCH = something more than 0, however slight it might be


And you said all that after I made this post that said exactly what I got out of the article and what I could get out of it if what I expected or felt would be useful info. was present in the article:

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
1Mile... (if I've missed, pardon me)... You should just admit your NOI bias and be done with it. I have no problem with the NOI and I'm in complete agreement with ZAKAR's statement.

And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview. But, being honest, we know or at least I know this is something that does differ from some of the prevailing White-washed narrative:

quote:
They try to say that Malcolm went over there and saw White Muslims that he had never seen before. When he went over there the first time, [he] saw the reality of the fact that Islam is the brotherhood of man and that the purpose of Islam is to bring about a universal brotherhood. That's not something that Elijah Muhammad didn't know but you're not gonna have brotherhood when you have people who will not submit to God and the equality of things [unless] they are in an exalted position.

Malcolm was no stranger to what was going on in the Middle East. [He] had a mindset, ideas and things that he was trying to do before time. The White man tried to utilize Malcolm to keep a permanent separation between those who admired [him] and those who tried to follow Elijah Muhammad, and now Min. Farrakhan.


Me, I was looking for more of a personal perspective from someone who knew him on a personal level and would treat the story like a biography and not some old tired defense of Elijah Muhammad. That, he can keep. He can defend Elijah Muhammad without the ploy of acting like he's going to provide new, different or untold (hardly known) insights into The Life & Times of our dear brother.

Anyway... The popular mythology (which doesn't isn't necessarily "popular" or accepted here amongst a core of rather astute brothers/sisters) tries to spin Malcolm's HAJJ experience into something that it was not. That's why ZAKAR's statement is ON POINT!

If AWM presents factoids about how Malcolm evolved with definitive quotes from Malcolm on substantive things like that (as opposed to the vague: "Brother Randolph, with what I've seen and what I've heard, if I were to turn back Allah would be justified in dropping me off of the Empire State Building on top of my head.")... then there is indeed value to be had in him writing this book.

But, if it's to constantly try to affirm Malcolm's love for Elijah Muhammad as a way to try run down the same ole tired Apologetics for the NOI... then whatever little tidbits he has to offer will get lost in the sea his NOI perspective he can't remove himself from.

So, I'd have to side with Umbra when it comes to that. If AWM is going to pretend to give a "true" history, Malcolm can't be a way for him to try to exonerate whatever he feels to be the flawed perceptions people have about the NOI.

But if the book is more "everyday with Malcolm" tidbits like that of an biography (as opposed to an NOI Apologetic) then even with his clear NOI bias the book is worth it.


But go ahead... Admit that you are NOI, if you are and cut with the deception.



That was: Posted July 23, 2006 11:24 AM
Your post with your FALSE claim (Mathematically Challenged FALSE claim) about me "chiming in with others..." was: Posted July 23, 2006 02:00 PM.

By that time we had been back and forth and you made several posts giving you ample time to be familiar with what I said and plenty of time NOT to be Stuck On Anti-Mathematically Stupidity.

Clearly, I knew/know what I said... The problem here is either you didn't or you just wanted to display your WILLED or chosen IGNORANCE. And the fact that you would say this (dismissing your error as if it is not an error and exactly what I said it was)...

"...if that's all you're tripping over and that's your example of me trying to lump you into a category with others or telling falsehoods..."

... then (lol) we really need to have a CREDIBILITY and INTEGRITY conference. lol
N, all i can do is apologize to you if you were offended by me mis-stating what you said. i came back and corrected myself after i went back and reviewed. if that's not good enough for you - i'm not really worried about it.

you said what you said and what you said does not indicate that you got much of anything out of the piece. IMO. if you did get something out of the piece - that is not made plain in the way you said what you said.

no offense but if you think i'm clocking your every post and deciphering everything you have said - i'm not. you know you've said quite a bit up in this thread but i'm NOT paying close attention to all (or much) of it.

if you want to act like you've never mis-stated what somebody said - do your thing. i've done it before and don't have a problem coming back and correcting myself after i've gone back and reviewed.

now, as you seem to like to do, you've over-inflated the incident to fit with the ASSumptions you have made about me and like i'm forever saying, do your thing and have fun with it.

afterall, either you were calling me "dude" because you actually didn't know i was a woman, or you read my previous statement, knew i was a woman but still persisted in the immaturity.

you didn't make an acknowledgement either way, let alone correct yourself so it's appropriate to post your words back to you. maybe you'll pay more attention to them (for your own benefit) than i do:

quote:
Clearly, I knew/know what I said... The problem here is either you didn't or you just wanted to display your WILLED or chosen IGNORANCE. And the fact that you would say this (dismissing your error as if it is not an error and exactly what I said it was)...

"Ha!! C'mon, dudette!"

... then (lol) we really need to have a CREDIBILITY and INTEGRITY conference.


yes, and you need to be in the front row at the conference N.

good bye~
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

IMO. if you did get something out of the piece - that is not made plain in the way you said what you said.


That's not up to your "opinion." And obviously this betrays your "I corrected myself" pretense:

quote:
quote:
The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong.


Posted July 23, 2006 07:57 PM
would you please point out where i did this. that's why i say i don't even know WTH you are talking about. where did i claim any such thing about your position?


That was only a few posts ago. I responded to your question there pointing our WHERE YOU CLAIMED THAT then you came back with this:

quote:
as far as me saying you came in giving a thanks for the info and then later were found saying you got absolutely nothing out of it .... i didn't put the words in quotes, so i was not directly quoting you but these were your words:
quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.
now, if you got something out of the interview, i'm sure even you will admit that is not indicated by your own words.


But let's move on to more entertaining things...

quote:
if you want to act like you've never mis-stated what somebody said - do your thing. i've done it before and don't have a problem coming back and correcting myself after i've gone back and reviewed.


lol lol lol lol

You don't have a problem... Okay! Wink

quote:
yes, and you need to be in the front row at the conference N.


Yep! Just so I can make sure I hear that "CORRECTION" speech.... FOR THE FIRST TIME.
Using your word of inquiry... *** WHERE? ***

LOL! lol Too funny!
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi: July 23, 2006 12:22 PM
well then N, if my integrity with you is non-existent,i should expect for you to move along and find other people here to interact with that you believe have integrity.

and let me correct myself. you didn't say you didn't get anything out of the interview, you said this after initially coming in giving thanks for the info:

quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.


other than that ...... would you like the final word in our exchange?


d'oh! @ N
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

Clearly, I knew/know what I said... The problem here is either you didn't or you just wanted to display your WILLED or chosen IGNORANCE. And the fact that you would say this (dismissing your error as if it is not an error and exactly what I said it was)...

"...if that's all you're tripping over and that's your example of me trying to lump you into a category with others or telling falsehoods..."

... then (lol) we really need to have a CREDIBILITY and INTEGRITY conference. lol


Double... DOH!!! Eek


That was an example of what? Since you wanted to pretend that it was an example of you "trying to lump me in..."?

Just asking...
quote:
  • in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself and my need to even feed into what you're trying to keep going. ...if you want to keep running in a circle by yourself, feel free.

  • well then N, if my integrity with you is non-existent, i should expect for you to move along and find other people here to interact with that you believe have integrity.

  • N, i'm not sure why you continue to try to engage me - someone you think has no integrity. i know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversation, dialogue or anything else going with them.

  • now, if you find i have no integrity in your eyes, as i find you have none in mine, it would seem to be more sensible for you to move on and find others to conversate with.


  • lol
    just some notes to the board:


    • is there an "ignore" feature on this board?
    • strange how N is resorting to subterfuge and diversion to keep attention away from the well shown FACT that he's guilty of the same things he's accusing me of
    • he was shown that with the dude/dudette example, but he comes back with more silliness
    • he was shown where i "corrected" my previous mis-statement, but he comes back with more silliness. never mind that he spent a time span of 10 hours ranting and harping over that which he could have found, had he taken the time to look. that which he would have seen, had he not been so hasty to continue running his mouth and mounting his campaign against me.
    • he cannot even acknowledge these things but can come back rolling on the floor and acting like his own foolishness hasn't been exposed. it's like dealing with a child.


    again, is there an "ignore" feature on this board anyone?
    Last edited {1}
    1M... What I quoted above suggested that you, of all people, didn't need a special feature for you to CLICK IGNORE. You kept trying to impress upon me that I should be motivated to stop talking to you because of what I had to say about your Lack Of Integrity. All the while, you couch that stuff in terms of "what you would do" if it was you who felt like you were dealing with someone whom you feel was lacking in credibility/integrity and/or was less than genuine.

    You went on to state that that was exactly how you felt about me yet you continued on with me. And, I'm sorry, beyond being quite ironic that just happens to be pretty damn funny to me.

    Now, I'll acknowledge where you said you stood "corrected" but I'll also acknowledge the highlighted "silliness" of yours that came afterwards. All in all, it's still just rather funny because, like the self-imposed IGNORE feature all your little "if I were you" points tried to impress upon me, you have complete control over advancing your topic on the terms you want.

    You talk about 10 hours I've done this or that, well, most of that you've spent away from the very topic you claim is so important. In truth, there's a consistent thread to both your phony "if I were you" statements and this pretense about me distracting from the topic.

    Now, you wouldn't have had to be "corrected" if you were actually focused on the topic and actual discussions on the topic.

    So keep all the funny stuff coming. And I won't even count the number of posts/hours after you said:
    "I know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversation, dialogue or anything else going with them."
    note to the board:

    if you go back and review this thread, you will again see that N is guilty of that which he is accusing other people. you will find him early on in this thread, making the following comment to umbra:

    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    And you don't need me to berate you. You do a damn good job of that yourself.

    But go ahead and ask another stupid rhetorical question just to make a pure a$$ out of yourself. I mean, it's really not that hard to read a couple of paragraphs. You came off half-cocked only to get dropped by a little carefully placed sentence that DEBUNKS the very line of BS you let come out your mouth.

    Now, here's my rhetorical question for you:
    Yacub? Is he yo' daddy?

    Cause you sho' act like a BIG HEAD mad anti-scientist with the crazy stuff you dream up.


    now this is not on-topic and is similar to a few other posts he was putting up early on in this thread... off topic, mind you, but he's trying to accuse others of that which he is guilty of himself. now we all know that threads take different twists and turns as people come in responding to comments which may not directly focus on the theme and if that is a known fact, and is something N clearly has done himself - in this very thread , it's somewhat hypocritical of him to act like such is acceptable for him but is not acceptable for other people.

    his yacub comment did nothing to steer things back to the thread topic. his rant at umbra did nothing to steer things back to the topic and did nothing to help this thread stay on topic so he is as much a part of the problem as anyone else he could be pointing at.
    1Mile... "Back To The Topic" is your pretense for objecting to... Well, for objecting to the reception you got.

    When I did comment ON TOPIC that's what you disregarded (until I separated you from your "lumping" ignorance). Again, the "Back To The Topic" deal was your deal, NOT MINE.

    Me... It's however you want to do this. Don't matter to me. It's your thread and topic. I told you that you could easily CLICK IGNORE and STAY ON TOPIC without the use of special/artificial features to help you STAY ON TASK. You can advance your topic by you staying ON TOPIC and not getting distracted yourself.

    I have no problems taking on most all comers. When I say "address the topic" on a thread of mine I will direct people back to the topic. They will particularly have to deal with the areas they apparently want to avoid. I don't even trip. I just let them know what it is they seem to purposely be trying to avoid. No sweat off my brow.

    That's just how I do.

    You can whine about me all day long but that won't get you back on YOUR TOPIC. No "Ignore" Feature needed. You're not handicapped.
    note to the board:

    the fact that many message boards have an "ignore" feature should speak for itself. the feature is found to be beneficial to many people. in a thread like this, if someone wanted to block out N's posts, or mine, in order to see what else went on in here - they'd be able to do it. if i wanted to read thru this topic without having to scroll thru N's posts, i'd be able to do that. people who use the ignore feature on other message boards are not "handicapped" or any other negative thing, name or description that "adults" could think to come up with.

    it is not my style to babysit adults - that is a waste of time - which is why my motto throughout this thread has been "do your thing." if someone wants to come in rolling around and slapping the floor - do your thing. if someone wants to come in and avoid the questions they are asked but then flaunt their educational status - do your thing. if a person wants to use a 10 hour span of time to excessively post and make accusations against other people when they are guilty of the same things they're accusing others of - do you thing. those behaviors say more about the maturity level of those participating in them than they do about me. if some of the grown men here need a board-mother to take them by the hand, scold them and tell them how/what to post - i hope they find one because i'm not it. N, however, evidently takes pride in being an adult board babysitter ... a mr. dad, i guess. :-O

    finally, any who want to keep abreast of the succeeding parts of the interview series with bro. wazir - everything could not be put in one article - you can follow up on the above mentioned site. since much of it will be related to NOI history on the west coast and some of the key figures in that (dr. khallid, brother jabril, etc), i won't be posting that here as i don't think too many are familiar or have that much of an interest.
    quote:
    the fact that many message boards have an "ignore" feature should speak for itself. the feature is found to be beneficial to many people. in a thread like this, if someone wanted to block out N's posts, or mine, in order to see what else went on in here - they'd be able to do it.


    Since the thread has degenerated into signifying match between 1milehi and Nmaginate it really makes sense to ignore the last 3 pages. lol

    negrospiritual said all that was worth saying about it on page 2. I jumped around in the article and saw nothing to indicate that it was worth my time reading the whole thing and I wasn't about to read it just to tell imilehi that I had.

    http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m...291007114#1291007114

    umbrarchist
    1mile, my comment wasnt towards you or anyone in particular.My sole point was malcom's legacy is a lot bigger than just Islam he is a world renound freedom fighter, Black Nationalist, Pan-Africanist. He would not have evolved into the man he became without the Nation and the teachings of the Honarable Elijah Muhammad, whom I view as a Master Psychologist, as well as a spiritual leader. But lets get real about the situation. I know and you know the Nation has to revamp itself. The old school tactics used to fish the walking dead, needs to be modernized to deal with these times. I belife the Nation has a great purpose in our community and i belief if it makes the necessary adjustments need to incorporate and include all the other grassroots and national movements out here fighting for the survival of African people.Ive been around the teachings for 21 years so i dont speak lightly. But we have to move away from this me versus you mentality and lets unite for our survival as a people. Christians , Hebrew Israelites, Animist, Muslims, non religious etc
    quote:
    Originally posted by umbrarchist:
    I jumped around in the article and saw nothing to indicate that it was worth my time reading the whole thing and I wasn't about to read it just to tell imilehi that I had.


    *shaking head* and you're 54 years old? if you didn't read the article, all you had to do was say that. but i guess that would have meant you would have had to concede how anti-intelligence it was for you to be attempting to jump into a discussion on that which you had not read.

    if you only jumped around in the article and jumped back out claiming to have found nothing, that's like someone quickly glancing over a pile of dirt and concluding there's nothing in there but had they taken the time, they might have found the diamonds that were hidden in the pile.

    but anyway - thank you for answering on page 5 of this thread what you were asked on page 1 (or 2). and you're really 54 years old, right?
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    1mile, my comment wasnt towards you or anyone in particular.


    thanks for the clarification. i was just wondering about that "brushing off" comment.

    quote:
    My sole point was malcom's legacy is a lot bigger than just Islam he is a world renound freedom fighter, Black Nationalist, Pan-Africanist. He would not have evolved into the man he became without the Nation and the teachings of the Honarable Elijah Muhammad, whom I view as a Master Psychologist, as well as a spiritual leader.


    i agree but to me there's still the matter of the false image that was built up by the enemy of us all. you and i may have respect for elijah muhammad but there are still some/many who know nothing of the matter other than the story that paints malcolm as hero and elijah muhammad/NOI as villains. nothing that malcolm did of good and value should be taken away but what is the process by which the falsehood of the malcolm/NOI story can be extracted from the whole so that there is more balance from all angles? that's the thing to me. you and i may be all right in our view but there's still funk in the air and lack of clarity in the minds of some who only know what's been fed to them from those who have an agenda to keep a rift going amongst malcolm supporters and those who love elijah muhammad and min farrakhan.

    quote:
    But lets get real about the situation. I know and you know the Nation has to revamp itself. The old school tactics used to fish the walking dead, needs to be modernized to deal with these times. I belife the Nation has a great purpose in our community and i belief if it makes the necessary adjustments need to incorporate and include all the other grassroots and national movements out here fighting for the survival of African people.


    i agree 100%. this isn't the 1960s anymore and what worked then does not necessarily work now. i think min. farrakhan is an example of what you're saying but many local mosque areas have yet to catch up. i know in the city i'm in, the minister here may have a good heart but he's not good at coalition building and making others feel he is not just interested in coming in and "running things" because he's NOI and NOI's got to be in charge. in other areas, however, the ministers are following min. farrakhan's example and making an impact in their areas. min. tony muhammad is an example in L.A. he's not perfect but he has the respect of a lot of groups out there that aren't NOI.

    quote:
    Ive been around the teachings for 21 years so i dont speak lightly. But we have to move away from this me versus you mentality and lets unite for our survival as a people. Christians , Hebrew Israelites, Animist, Muslims, non religious etc


    i agree. i've been around the teachings less time than you, around 13 years, but i agree.

    thanks for the explanation.
    quote:
    *shaking head* and you're 54 years old? if you didn't read the article, all you had to do was say that. but i guess that would have meant you would have had to concede how anti-intelligence it was for you to be attempting to jump into a discussion on that which you had not read.


    Life is short and time is precious and there is lots of bullshit in the world. I read the Autobiography of Malcom X not long after it came out when I was still in high school and at least twice more since then. I have also read other stuff about him and watched videos on the subject.

    quote:
    that's like someone quickly glancing over a pile of dirt and concluding there's nothing in there but had they taken the time, they might have found the diamonds that were hidden in the pile.


    You must also take into account where the pile of dirt came from.

    I don't trust the NOI as far as I can throw the Taj Mahal on the subject of Malcolm X. I told you I had probably talked to NOI members before you were born but I can't be sure of that since I don't know your age. I'm guessing you are under 35.

    You can make whatever assumptions you like about how men my age should behave and think but I know I wouldn't fit a profile for most black men my age, and I was politely ignoring plenty when I was under 20. I said Malcolm was shot shortly before my 13th birthday, the computation shouldn't be difficult.

    I don't get any points for figuring out what negrospiritual figured out without reading the article myself? lol lol lol

    umbrarchist
    quote:
    i agree but to me there's still the matter of the false image that was built up by the enemy of us all. you and i may have respect for elijah muhammad but there are still some/many who know nothing of the matter other than the story that paints malcolm as hero and elijah muhammad/NOI as villains.


    1Mile, IMO, Virtue summed up the sentiments of those of us who aren't anti-NOI:

    It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...


    ZAKAR also stated, clearly, the very way inwhich we should view this question:

    I LOVE MALCOM, AND I LOVE THE MINISTER, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE. ....ISLAM WAS HIS RELIGION , IT BROUGHT HIM OUT OF THE DARKNESS, BUT HE WAS... A PAN AFRICANIST AND BLACK NATIONALIST IN HIS IDEOLOGY.


    With those things noted, few people here have expressed having any issues with the NOI. Concerns about the "false image" then are mostly misplaced here. The only outstanding dissent, so to speak, has come from Umbra.

    It's that type of assumption-concern that makes up the NOI/Elijah Muhammad APOLOGETICS. And it really has little grounds as a concern here because for a lot of people (per ZAKAR's and Virtue's statements) those things are not an issue.

    For those concerns, however, it is time to "GET REAL." Those people who are not NOI or would-be vocal supporters need not esteem or regard Elijah Muhammad the way the NOI does to appreciate Malcolm's "birthplace." That's my issue with the apparent Apologetics evident in the interview with AWM.
    quote:
    Originally posted by umbrarchist:
    [QUOTE]*shaking head* and you're 54 years old? if you didn't read the article, all you had to do was say that. but i guess that would have meant you would have had to concede how anti-intelligence it was for you to be attempting to jump into a discussion on that which you had not read.

    Life is short and time is precious and there is lots of bullshit in the world. I read the Autobiography of Malcom X not long after it came out when I was still in high school and at least twice more since then. I have also read other stuff about him and watched videos on the subject.


    umbra, i stand by my statement. if you had of admitted that you had not read the article, that would mean you would have had to concede that - as malcolm used to say - you were "operating against the laws of intelligence" by even trying to discuss, analyze and critique something that you had not read. you shouldn't even be trying to get around that.

    you cannot judge what is in the interview by what you read in an autobiography, or by anything else you have read. you should be judging the contents of the interview by what they are and since you don't know what they are - it is anti-intelligence for you to be comparing them to other things you took the time to read when you did not do the same, i.e. READ with an open mind, with the interview.

    that's what i'm saying. it's just like N told you earlier in the thread - you're judging a book by the cover and that's just shouldn't be the case given your previously stated level of intellgence.

    quote:
    You must also take into account where the pile of dirt came from.

    I don't trust the NOI as far as I can throw the Taj Mahal on the subject of Malcolm X. I told you I had probably talked to NOI members before you were born but I can't be sure of that since I don't know your age. I'm guessing you are under 35.


    no, i'm not under 35. you don't trust "the NOI" but "the NOI" was not interviewed. the person who was interviewed is not the people you encountered in your youth. but my motto is "do your thing." i may not trust "50-some year old men who can't answer direct questions" - but that doesn't stop me from giving you the benefit of the doubt and reading your words. but that's me and you're you.

    quote:
    You can make whatever assumptions you like about how men my age should behave and think but I know I wouldn't fit a profile for most black men my age, and I was politely ignoring plenty when I was under 20. I said Malcolm was shot shortly before my 13th birthday, the computation shouldn't be difficult.


    i don't know if i was making assumptions. i think any of us would be surprised at someone 50 years old skirting around a question like you did earlier. and then giving the explanation that you gave to N - *shrug* it's just surprising to me that someone 50 years old operates like that - but do your thing.

    quote:
    I don't get any points for figuring out what negrospiritual figured out without reading the article myself? lol lol lol

    umbrarchist


    no, you don't. given your stated level of intelligence, i'm surprised that you're satisfied to allow someone else to do your thinking for you.

    and i believe negrospiritual is one of the ones who said there was "nothing" new in the article. people can say that but i truly fail to believe that that is true, so yes, i'm saying there's a bit of dishonesty in that.

    i know for those who are not up on NOI history, there are some things in there that they wouldn't possibly know. the small bit that was shared about malcolm's brothers - you mean to tell me that those who say there's nothing "new" in the article knew that? if they didn't know those things then it's not accurate to say there's nothing "new" in the piece. so, i don't know what the purpose is in using that phrase because, IMO, it cannot possibly be accurate for anybody on this board.

    malcolm taught that the reason jesus spoke in parables was to discern the condition of people's hearts. did you know he taught that? if you didn't, that's something "new" that you would have found in the piece had you had the ability to sit down and read it instead of finding excuses not to.
    there is some interesting information contained in this interview between democracy now and manning marable: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/21/1458213

    excerpt regarding the autobiography of malcolm x:

    quote:
    AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and then when we come back, we are a going to talk about The Autobiography of Malcolm X, the missing chapters, and where they are, which you have got a chance to see excerpts of.

    MANNING MARABLE: That's right.

    AMY GOODMAN: We're going to talk about how the autobiography was written, and the F.B.I., their relationship with Alex Haley. We will talk about these things and more in just a minute.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour today on Malcolm X, today the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Our guest is Columbia University Professor Manning Marable, writing a biography of Malcolm X, and also the editor of the magazine Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society. The winter 2005 issue, photograph of Malcolm X on the cover, and that's what the whole issue is devoted to, with a major article by Professor Marable. Let's talk about The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

    MANNING MARABLE: Okay. The -- most people who read the autobiography perceive the narrative as a story that now millions of people know, and it was -- it's a story of human transformation, the powerful epiphany, Malcolm's journey to Mecca, his renunciation of the Nation of Islam's racial separatism, his embrace of universal humanity, of humanism that was articulated through Sunni Islam. Well, that's the story everybody knows. But there's a hidden history. You see, Malcolm and Haley collaborated to produce a magnificent narrative about the life of Malcolm X, but the two men had very different motives in coming together. Malcolm did -- what Malcolm did not know is that back in 1962, a collaborator of Alex Haley, fellow named -- a journalist named Alfred Balk had approached the F.B.I. regarding an article that he and Haley were writing together for The Saturday Evening Post, and the F.B.I. had an interest in castigating the Nation of Islam, and isolating it from the mainstream of Negro civil rights activity. So consequently, a deal was struck between Balk, Haley and the F.B.I. that the F.B.I. provided information to Balk and Haley in the construction of their article, and Balk was -- Balk was really the interlocutor between the F.B.I. and the two writers in putting a spin on the article. The F.B.I. was very happy with the article they produced, which was entitled, "The Black Merchants of Hate," that came out in early 1963. What's significant about that piece is that that became the template for what evolved into the basic narrative structure of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

    AMY GOODMAN: Did Alex Haley know about this relationship?

    MANNING MARABLE: There is no direct evidence that Haley sat down with the F.B.I. Nevertheless, since Balk was the co-author of the piece and it was Balk who talked directly with the F.B.I. --

    AMY GOODMAN: Did Haley know --

    MANNING MARABLE: One can assume that Haley was involved in it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Did Haley at least talk to Balk about -- did he know about Balk's relationship with the F.B.I.?

    MANNING MARABLE: One can assume that Haley did because Haley and Balk co-authored the piece, traveled throughout the United States together and collected material together to form an article that they co-authored. It would be highly unlikely that Haley did not know.

    AMY GOODMAN: Then the writing of the autobiography, Alex Haley and Malcolm X's relationship. How did they do it?

    MANNING MARABLE: Over a period of --

    AMY GOODMAN: And why did Malcolm X choose him?

    MANNING MARABLE: Over a period of about year-and-a-half, Malcolm and Haley agreed to work with each other. They met usually after a long business day that Malcolm put in very tired. He would get there at about -- either at Haley's apartment or they would meet at then Idyllwild Airport at a hotel, and Malcolm would be debriefed by Haley. He would talk, Haley would take notes. Malcolm had a habit of scribbling notes in small pieces of paper that Haley would surreptitiously pick up at the end of their discussions. Malcolm's objective was actually to reingratiate himself within the Nation of Islam, that because he had emerged by the early 1960s as a very prominent figure outside of the N.O.I., there were critics within the organization that were saying to the patriarch of the N.O.I., the Honorable Elijah Mohammad, that Malcolm planned to take over the organization, which was not true. But nevertheless, Malcolm felt that if he could make a public -- a prominent public statement to show his fidelity to the Honorable Elijah Mohammad that that might win him back in the good graces of the organization. But there were internal critics, sharp critics, who were very opposed to him, and who were very -- some of them were members of Elijah Mohammad's family, such as Herbert Mohammad, Raymond Shareef, who was the head of the Fruit of Islam, the brother-in-law of -- the son-in-law of Elijah Mohammad. They isolated Malcolm X and kept him out of the newspaper of the organization Mohammad Speaks for over a year, which is kind of curious. He was the national spokesperson of the N.O.I., and he wasn't represented in their own newspaper for over a year. Haley's objective was quite different. Haley was a republican. He was an integrationist. He was very opposed to black nationalism. His objective was to illustrate that the racial separatism of the N.O.I. was a kind of pathological or a kind of -- it was the logical culmination of separatism and racial isolationism and exclusion. He wanted to show the negative aspects of the N.O.I.'s ideology, Yacub's history, and all of the ramifications of racial separatism that he felt were negative, and that Malcolm, being as charismatic as he was, a very attractive figure, nevertheless, he embodied these kind of negative traits. Haley felt he could make a solid case in favor of racial integration by showing what was -- to white America -- what was the consequence of their support for racial separatism that would end up producing a kind of hate, the hate that hate produced, to use the phrase that Mike Wallace used in his 1959 documentary on the Nation of Islam. So, the two men for very different reasons came together. What is striking is that from almost from the very beginning of certainly by September and October of 1963, as the book was being constructed, that Haley was vetting -- asking questions to the publisher and to the publisher's attorney regarding many of the things that Malcolm was saying. He was worried that he would not have a book that would have the kind of sting that he wanted. He was also concerned, to use Haley's phrase, about the purported anti-Semitism of Malcolm X, and so he began to rewrite words or passages in the book without Malcolm's knowledge. And Haley, in his own -- this is prior to emails -- Haley had a tendency to write even more frequently and voluminously to his agents and his editors than he did putting pen to paper in his own books. So that one finds in Haley's archives, or the archives of Anne Romaine, who was going to be his biographer until her tragic death in 1995, one finds a copious series of notes from Haley to his editors and attorneys regarding the construction of the autobiography itself. He wanted to steer the book to accomplish his political goals, as well as Malcolm's goals...


    now this is from manning marable - who is not NOI. those who reject bro. wazir's information, do you also reject this:

    quote:
    ....The F.B.I. was very happy with the article they produced, which was entitled, "The Black Merchants of Hate," that came out in early 1963. What's significant about that piece is that that became the template for what evolved into the basic narrative structure of The Autobiography of Malcolm X....


    those who don't trust anything that comes from "the NOI" do you also not trust anything that comes from the FBI, including portions of malcolm's autobiography? if you accept that the FBI's influence is in the book, how do you know which parts are tainted and which parts are true?
    1Mile? What is your point?

    Tell me how you've advance the discussion beyond the point where SHANGO said this:

    quote:
    Not me, brother. I know how to read.

    The quote YOU provided dealt with what the PRESS reported. I know white folks were setting up the NOI. This is a fact.



    It's clear SHANGO laid out the very thing that answers your question as you continue on with this version of your Apologetics.


    quote:
    I know you think so... but to students of our history, there is nothing new here.


    ... AS STUDENTS OF HISTORY. That's how! And folk who are inclined to dismiss things from the NOI can very well be just as dismissive of Marable. Most folk ain't in love with people who come from the hard-core Black Radical Tradition. A lot of Black folk favor and are invested in capitalism... That puts them at odds with Marable's worldview.


    quote:
    The Nation of Islam was the dominant black nationalist formation during the period after the Garvey black nationalist movement of the 1920s through the black power insurgence of the 1960s. So to begin talking about Malcolm we've got to talk about the Nation of Islam. Born in Detroit's African American neighborhoods during the Great Depression, this creator and first prophet was an obscure salesman. The Honorable D.W. Fard, after preaching for four years an ideology which was a mixture of Sunni Islam and black nationalism, succeeded in recruiting to his cause about 8,000 converts by the middle of the 1930s. He established the Fruit of Islam, a paramilitary organization, the Muslim Girls Training Class, a school specifically for women members of the nation, and the University of Islam. After Fard's disappearance or death, his chief lieutenant, Elijah Muhammad, became the leader of this religious and black nationalist movement. During the 1930s a number of people in the movement fought for leadership with the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. So Elijah Muhammad moved his organization and the basis of his support from Detroit to Chicago by the early 1940s.

    At this point an event took place that greatly accelerated the development of the Nation of Islam. Muhammad was convicted and imprisoned unjustly during World War II for resisting the draft. While he was a federal prison in a federal penitentiary, Elijah Muhammad looked around him and began to realize that African American churches, the NAACP, the Urban League, the other civil rights organizations, made no efforts to recruit the most oppressed, most victimized of all African American people: the black prisoners. So it was Elijah Muhammad in his genius who recognized that there was no program to recruit and transform the most depressed of his race, those who were addicted to narcotics, pimps, convicts, young delinquents, prostitutes, the permanently unemployed and the undereducated. During the postwar period, the Nation of Islam began to focus on the most oppressed African American group. The results were astonishing. By 1960, the nation's membership was between 65,000 to 100,000 nationwide. During Elijah Muhammad's tight discipline and his pro-black nationalist creed, thousands of people addicted to drugs quit their dependence on narcotics. People who had been depressed, people outside of jobs, people outside of hope found a sense of humanity, a sense of human dignity by joining the Nation of Islam. Over three fourths of the nation's members by 1960 were young African Americans between the ages of eighteen to thirty five. Members donated a significant portion of their personal income, as much as one third of their annual income, to the nation, which was used to construct Islamic schools, temples, and businesses. In Chicago alone, by 1960 the Nation of Islam owned one half million dollars worth of real estate. The nation's expansion during the 1950s was also largely attributable to Elijah Muhammad's recruitment of a most gifted and very charismatic spokesperson named Malcolm Little.

    Malcolm Little was converted to the Nation of Islam while he was imprisoned. He had been a petty hustler, a criminal in Boston and New York's ghettos. Leaving prison in 1952, Malcolm Little was renamed Malcolm X, the X symbolically repudiating the white man's name which he had carried. Elijah Muhammad carefully nurtured Malcolm X's career into the organization's hierarchy. By 1955 Malcolm had become the minister of Harlem's Temple No. 7. He increasingly in the late 1950s began to travel throughout the country, an articulate spokesperson and orator as Aaron was to Moses in a sense, delivering what he believed to be the truth to liberate his people. Political leaders began to relate to the Nation of Islam, recognizing that Elijah Muhammad's absolute control over so many thousands and thousands of potential voters represented an important political power block. So Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the most prominent black elected official during this period, attended a leadership conference staged by Malcolm X in Harlem in 1960. Fidel Castro the same year met with Malcolm for private political discussions.

    Simultaneously, unknown fully to Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, the Federal Bureau of Investigation made the decision to thoroughly infiltrate the Nation of Islam. They had already had agents in the organization since the 1940s. But what is very clear is that as the nation began to grow, to assume a great deal of leadership, not just over 100,000 people but over several million African Americans who looked to the nation with respect, that is when the FBI made the decision to infiltrate in a very sophisticated manner. The Nation of Islam's temples were wire tapped illegally. No court orders. The FBI doesn't worry about legality. The Nation of Islam's members began to be watched. Their taxes began to be looked at.

    Malcolm's letters in 1955 and 1956 were seized in the mail, transcribed and sent on by the FBI. This is all illegal. By 1960 the surveillance on Malcolm began to accelerate dramatically. So you had a number of agents who were specifically charged in various headquarters to follow and document the movements and statements of Malcolm X. As the Nation of Islam prospered, white liberals and black integrationists became fearful of the movement's stunning success in attracting working class African Americans and low income people. Scholars studied the nation and drew parallels, they said, between the Nation of Islam and the rise of fascism in Europe. White sociologist described the nation as "the hate that hate produced," a racial cult similar to "Hitler and the white citizens' councils of the South." A black sociologist and writer, C. Eric Lincoln, in Black Muslims in America, expressed the concern that "the black Muslims virulent attacks on the white man might threaten the security of the white majority and lead those in power to tighten the barriers which already divide America." Civil rights leaders began to speak out against the Nation of Islam. In August 1959, Roy Wilkins, then the head of the NAACP, declared that the Nation of Islam had a "white hate doctrine which was as dangerous as any group of white racists." The Nation of Islam clearly "furnishes ammunition for the use of white supremacists." James Farmer of CORE denounced the Nation as "utterly impractical and dangerous." Farmer argued, "after the black culture was taken from us during slavery, we had to adopt to the culture here." So Farmer reasoned, by rejecting integration, the Muslims were aiding and abetting the dynamic of racial segregation.

    But with a sure grasp of African American history, Malcolm X responded to Farmer this way: "We who are Muslims, followers of Elijah Muhammad, do not think that an integrated cup of coffee is sufficient payment for 310 years of slave labor in America." [applause] Malcolm understood that there was something fundamentally flawed with the philosophy of liberal integrationism if being an integrationist meant that you wanted to integrate with the mainstream. If the mainstream was racism, capitalist exploitation, all kinds of ideologies which were backward and antihuman, why would you want to integrate with a sewer? This is what Malcolm argued. [applause] Malcolm argued that it is not a case of dark mankind wanting either integration or separation. It is a case of wanting freedom, justice and equality. It is not integration that most Negros in America want, it is human dignity. That accounts for Malcolm X's meteoric rise in popularity among millions of African American people, most of whom were not members of the Nation of Islam, most of whom did not hear him preach in the temples of the Nation, but heard him in other venues outside of the dynamics of his religious organization.

    http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/barmarable.htm


    As far as that Democracy Now episode...
    To Kill A Black Messiah: Malcolm X, 40 years after...

    Wasn't much discussion there but the info. was duly noted.



    ___________ ___________________ ___________
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    no, you don't. given your stated level of intelligence, i'm surprised that you're satisfied to allow someone else to do your thinking for you.


    I keep telling you that I met and talked to NOI members decades ago. I keep telling you I have read and watched multiple sources of info about the NOI. One book was a series of essays collected by David Galen one of which talked about 10 murders of people trying to leave the NOI. But you want to talk like I'm so ignorant and stupid because I don't get excited about some material that to me was obviously uninformative.

    Do you go around digging in every pile of dirt you encounter on the chance there might be diamonds in it?

    You just sound like the stereotypical NOI member to me. Anybody that doesn't buy the NOI tunnel vision perspective of reality is a dummy brainwashed by the White man.

    YAWN!

    umbra
    quote:
    Originally posted by umbrarchist:
    quote:
    no, you don't. given your stated level of intelligence, i'm surprised that you're satisfied to allow someone else to do your thinking for you.


    I keep telling you that I met and talked to NOI members decades ago. I keep telling you I have read and watched multiple sources of info about the NOI. One book was a series of essays collected by David Galen one of which talked about 10 murders of people trying to leave the NOI. But you want to talk like I'm so ignorant and stupid because I don't get excited about some material that to me was obviously uninformative.

    Do you go around digging in every pile of dirt you encounter on the chance there might be diamonds in it?

    You just sound like the stereotypical NOI member to me. Anybody that doesn't buy the NOI tunnel vision perspective of reality is a dummy brainwashed by the White man.

    YAWN!

    umbra



    You should also read Inside The Nation of Islam: A Historical And Personal Testimony By A Black Muslim by Vibert L. White Jr. aka Vibert X - a former NOI minister who worked directly under Farrakhan.
    no umbra, my point was, and shall continue to be, that if you're in this topic, which was primarily based on material that you have yet to read in its entirety and with open mind, you are violating laws of intelligence by jumping into the middle of the discussion as though you have anything to offer on what this topic was based on.

    you've admitted that you have a lot to offer based on your bias toward/against the NOI and - though you may think you were saying something negative to me - your words should, appropriately be turned around and given back to you in the hopes that you will take them, look in the mirror, and repeat them:

    You just sound like the typical anti-NOI person to me. Anybody that doesn't buy the anti-NOI irrational, emotion-based perspective of reality is a dummy and robot following NOI dictates and can't think for themself.

    i don't know if you'll answer this question or skirt around it and answer 5 pages down the line but, did you read the democracy now interview with manning marable? he's not NOI. that interview has been put out on the table for discussion in this thread. since you are all up in here - will you read the interview or find an excuse not to? if you have an excuse ... or i should give you the benefit of the doubt and say "reason" - if you have a reason for not reading THAT interview - please state what it is.

    thank you.
    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:


    just because you and 2-3 others didn't get anything "new" or beneficial from the info - big deal! you all don't represent anybody other than yourselves unless you are guilty of what was pointed out in the article: thinking more of yourselves than you ought.



    Generally speaking, I've found it to be good policy to think more highly of myself than I do of some bean pie eating bow tie wearing fool claiming to be God... this policy has gotten me far in life ... munch
    well unfortunately, honest brother, seeing as how you came in the thread talking about a mothership instead of the topic, that speaks for itself as to how "far" your level of development has gotten you in life. umbra also came in talking about his advancement or his level of intelligence and even his high IQ, i believe - as if folks who clicked on the topic link came in to read about that.

    but okay. you two are far advanced, or have self-proclaimed yourselves as that, but you are unable to come in and deal with this particular topic in a better manner. as the saying goes............... "whatever floats your boat." if you want everyone to give two hand claps for how far you've gotten in life and umbra's alleged high IQ ..... *clap* *clap*, that's my donation to your cause.

    Add Reply

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