Happy Martin Luther King Jr Day brehs

[King Poetic]

good post.. to bad these c00ns won't come in here unless u change the title to MLK WITH A GORGEOUS P.A.W.G.

 

[Nomad1]

 

[↓R↑LYB]

elaborate on this......

Because even Malcolm X said that Corretta has to argue with MLK to get him to turn up a little bit.

I respect MLK.......... but I don't know too much about him going towards militancy or to human rights.

mainly he pushed civil rights..... which is strange because hispanics push hispanic rights, gays successfully push gay rights, chinese used to have china man rights, women have women rights...

but we pushed 'civil rights'...... Why didn't we say BLACK rights? let me know when MLK was going to be militant ( not that i think he should have been........ but I'm just curious)

Read up on the poor peoples campaign for starters. The problem IMO is the version of MLK we learned was the version cacs taught us about in school: the scared, safe passive negro who took beatings with grace and dignity. When in reality Martin was tooled up and got denied a concealed carriers permit.

The fact you say why didn't he push for black rights proves that you received the same miseducation I did. Look at the video in the OP. He made it clear who he was fighting for (black people) and who was the problem (white people). In the poor peoples campaign he was pushing for economic independence and entrepreneurship, not a seat at the white mans table like people like to assume.

Even with the civil rights act, the reason it became something for minorities and not for black people is because racist congressman refused to let the bill through congress until they included every other group (primarily white women). I've heard Claude Anderson speak about when he was writing the original version of affirmative action he didn't include gays, women, Hispanics, and all minorities. He said he wrote it specifically for black people. But by the time congress got done they did the same thing they did to the civil rights act.

 

[Blackking]

Read up on the poor peoples campaign for starters. The problem IMO is the version of MLK we learned was the version cacs taught us about in school: the scared, safe passive negro who took beatings with grace and dignity. When in reality Martin was tooled up and got denied a concealed carriers permit.

The fact you say why didn't he push for black rights proves that you received the same miseducation I did. Look at the video in the OP. He made it clear who he was fighting for (black people) and who was the problem (white people). In the poor peoples campaign he was pushing for economic independence and entrepreneurship, not a seat at the white mans table like people like to assume.

Even with the civil rights act, the reason it became something for minorities and not for black people is because racist congressman refused to let the bill through congress until they included every other group (primarily white women). I've heard Claude Anderson speak about when he was writing the original version of affirmative action he didn't include gays, women, Hispanics, and all minorities. He said he wrote it specifically for black people. But by the time congress got done they did the same thing they did to the civil rights act.

i've read all the black essays and literature and comments about how MLK wasn't passive and wasn't 'safe'...... etc. Yeah I also learned the white version of events in school.
Even while reading both versions, I can see that he wasn't only passive, but he wasn't a black nationalist either.

He was a promoter of non violence. But you make him seem all tooled up and ready to do drive bys on Geroge Wallace's house.
He did push racist like Ghadi down black peoples minds ------ Thats the reason there is a huge fukkboy statue of that fukkboy at the MLK center
He himself would use the word civil rights , NON stop. During the same time frame there were students and revolutionaries saying black pride, black power and BLACK rights.
You mention the minority word... I never said that word - but that lets me know that you know how pointless most of the BS ended up for us, you know that when we use words like Civil and Minority rights.... everyone gains progress in this nation but blacks.
And idk if he wasn't pushing for a seat at the white mans table - maybe he wasn't but For the Most part thats what he legacy is and that's what people who even heard him speak got out of his rehtoric. When you speak , you must speak in a way that no person can manipulate your legacy. You do that by doing what Marcuz Garvy did - build businesses in the way you feel black should. You do that by doing what Malcom x did - not ride any fences or do any double talking in speech..

Plus, like i said i'm not dissing him....... but I'm not seeing the things your stating. How do you say Claud Andersons name when speaking on MLK. MLK and the rest pushed for more economic and social integration - when harms our economic position and entrepreneurship.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

i've read all the black essays and literature and comments about how MLK wasn't passive and wasn't 'safe'...... etc. Yeah I also learned the white version of events in school.
Even while reading both versions, I can see that he wasn't only passive, but he wasn't a black nationalist either.

He was a promoter of non violence. But you make him seem all tooled up and ready to do drive bys on Geroge Wallace's house.
He did push racist like Ghadi down black peoples minds ------ Thats the reason there is a huge fukkboy statue of that fukkboy at the MLK center
He himself would use the word civil rights , NON stop. During the same time frame there were students and revolutionaries saying black pride, black power and BLACK rights.
You mention the minority word... I never said that word - but that lets me know that you know how pointless most of the BS ended up for us, you know that when we use words like Civil and Minority rights.... everyone gains progress in this nation but blacks.
And idk if he wasn't pushing for a seat at the white mans table - maybe he wasn't but For the Most part thats what he legacy is and that's what people who even heard him speak got out of his rehtoric. When you speak , you must speak in a way that no person can manipulate your legacy. You do that by doing what Marcuz Garvy did - build businesses in the way you feel black should. You do that by doing what Malcom x did - not ride any fences or do any double talking in speech..

Plus, like i said i'm not dissing him....... but I'm not seeing the things your stating. How do you say Claud Andersons name when speaking on MLK. MLK and the rest pushed for more economic and social integration - when harms our economic position and entrepreneurship.

This is from the economic bill of rights from the poor people's campaign:

1. People were to have a meaningful job with a livable wage.
2. People were to get a secure and efficient income.
3. People were to be able to access land for economic reasons.-
4. Less well-off people were to have access to capital to promote business
5. The middle class were to have a large role in government.

Like I said, MLK didn't just push for social and economic integration. And when I said he was moving to militancy I didn't say he was going to be violent. Malcolm X defined as militant but he never ran up on white people either. X even went as far as to say that he believed black people won't have to go to war because Allah will fight their battles for them. This is what I mean when I said militant (from MLK's own words):

To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to society but not wantonly destructive. Moreover, it is more difficult for government to quell it by superior force. Mass civil disobedience can use rage as a constructive and creative force. It is purposeless to tell Negroes they should not be enraged when they should be. Indeed, they will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and use its energy peacefully but forcefully to cripple the operations of an oppressive society. Civil disobedience can utilize the militancy wasted in riots to seize clothes or groceries many did not even want.

Civil disobedience has never been used on a mass scale in the North. It has rarely been seriously organized and resolutely pursued. Too often in the past was it employed incorrectly. It was resorted to only when there was an absence of mass support and its purpose was headline-hunting. The exceptions were the massive school boycotts by Northern Negroes. They shook educational systems to their roots but they lasted only single days and were never repeated. If they are developed as weekly events at the same time that mass sit-ins are developed inside and at the gates of factories for jobs, and if simultaneously thousands of unemployed youth camp in Washington, as the Bonus Marchers did in the thirties, with these and other practices, without burning a match or firing a gun, the impact of the movement will have earthquake proportions. (In the Bonus Marches, it was the government that burned down the marchers' shelters when it became confounded by peaceful civil disobedience.)

This is not an easy program to implement. Riots are easier just because they need no organization. To have effect we will have to develop mass disciplined forces that can remain excited and determined without dramatic conflagrations.[16]

The goal of the protest was literally to have a city placed right in the middle of Washington DC and have a 24x7 protest and disrupt government function. Even after he died Abernathy went ahead with the protest and had about 50,000 people there on one of their demonstrations. The tent city was so large it even had its own zip code. MLK was absolutely non-violent, there's no question about that. But his method for change absolutely shook this country to the core.

 

[Blackking]

This is from the economic bill of rights from the poor people's campaign:



Like I said, MLK didn't just push for social and economic integration. And when I said he was moving to militancy I didn't say he was going to be violent. Malcolm X defined as militant but he never ran up on white people either. X even went as far as to say that he believed black people won't have to go to war because Allah will fight their battles for them. This is what I mean when I said militant (from MLK's own words):



The goal of the protest was literally to have a city placed right in the middle of Washington DC and have a 24x7 protest and disrupt government function. Even after he died Abernathy went ahead with the protest and had about 50,000 people there on one of their demonstrations. The tent city was so large it even had its own zip code. MLK was absolutely non-violent, there's no question about that. But his method for change absolutely shook this country to the core.

I'm not seeing too much of a BLACK focus.................... everything still is leaning on that whole 'minority' or poor peoples or 'whatever' rights.
There are socialist movements, poor peoples, Union workers rights, hispanic rights, chinese american rights, Anti defamation pro Jew rights, Womans rights movements, etc.......

What's wrong with having a BLACK rights movement?


Anyway, I do agree that riots aren't effective as other methods. And i respect mLK's efforts



I do think that some of the efforts harm the other efforts. Asking for a seat at the table AKA 130% integration and begging for it, hurts group economics in the long run -------- AT LEAST thats what Claud Anderson said a million times.


Ida B Wells - the historian said that the only time that we were not hung from trees and not intimidated is when we showed that we were not scared and most of the town that armed with rifles were left untouched. Sure we can't go to war with the most powerful Gov in history - BUT we haven't had much success with passivity


Dude had a tent city in 50K in DC. Thats cool I guess...... But Farrakhan had a Million + in DC, yet you see how that didn't have a lasting affect because we didn't change mind and make peoples minds nationalistic at the core.

Buying into the ideas of Gandi isn't a good mindset, imo. I think the movement should have been 70 Malcom x, 30 % MLK. What the real reason most black rejected Malcolm???

 

[↓R↑LYB]

I'm not seeing too much of a BLACK focus.................... everything still is leaning on that whole 'minority' or poor peoples or 'whatever' rights.
There are socialist movements, poor peoples, Union workers rights, hispanic rights, chinese american rights, Anti defamation pro Jew rights, Womans rights movements, etc.......

What's wrong with having a BLACK rights movement?


Anyway, I do agree that riots aren't effective as other methods. And i respect mLK's efforts



I do think that some of the efforts harm the other efforts. Asking for a seat at the table AKA 130% integration and begging for it, hurts group economics in the long run -------- AT LEAST thats what Claud Anderson said a million times.


Ida B Wells - the historian said that the only time that we were not hung from trees and not intimidated is when we showed that we were not scared and most of the town that armed with rifles were left untouched. Sure we can't go to war with the most powerful Gov in history - BUT we haven't had much success with passivity


Dude had a tent city in 50K in DC. Thats cool I guess...... But Farrakhan had a Million + in DC, yet you see how that didn't have a lasting affect because we didn't change mind and make peoples minds nationalistic at the core.

Buying into the ideas of Gandi isn't a good mindset, imo. I think the movement should have been 70 Malcom x, 30 % MLK. What the real reason most black rejected Malcolm???

Breh.....every single speech king gave he spoke on behalf on black people. Every single one. I don't know why keep you insinuating that somehow he was scared to speak on behalf of black people

And Farrkhan was there for 1 day. The MLK campaign was supposed to be PERMANENT. The plan was for them to never leave until their demands were met. Which is why I said the USPS even gave the city it's own zip code.

 

[Blackking]

Breh.....every single speech king gave he spoke on behalf on black people. Every single one. I don't know why keep you insinuating that somehow he was scared to speak on behalf of black people

And Farrkhan was there for 1 day. The MLK campaign was supposed to be PERMANENT. The plan was for them to never leave until their demands were met. Which is why I said the USPS even gave the city it's own zip code.

i didn't say he was scared to speak on the behave of black people.

but if @bdizzle lead a movement, I doubt that breh would Not say black this and black people that................ I'm sure he wouldn't speak in this over all humanity, black girls and white boys playing together, everyone is equal sort of way. I would hope it would be - Black people deserve to be treated as humans, period, with us or against US (black people ) for the rights of Black people.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

i didn't say he was scared to speak on the behave of black people.

but if @bdizzle lead a movement, I doubt that breh would Not say black this and black people that................ I'm sure he wouldn't speak in this over all humanity, black girls and white boys playing together, everyone is equal sort of way. I would hope it would be - Black people deserve to be treated as humans, period, with us or against US (black people ) for the rights of Black people.

You do realize MLK literally said black people deserve better treatments as human beings right. Everytime he spoke about the issues he was pushing he always spoke about who he was fighting for (American negros).

And if I led a movement it would be telling people to take our asses back to Africa. Even the Malcolm X really didn't push repatriation (even though he did allude to it in some of his speeches).

 

[Blackking]

You do realize MLK literally said black people deserve better treatments as human beings right. Everytime he spoke about the issues he was pushing he always spoke about who he was fighting for (American negros).

And if I led a movement it would be telling people to take our asses back to Africa. Even the Malcolm X really didn't push repatriation (even though he did allude to it in some of his speeches).

yes i realize. but i hear his speeches... he was on that multicultural, minority wave. i'm not saying it's a bad thing.......... I'm just saying.
integration push.
minority push.
all humans , etc.

anyway, Malcolm x did push repatriation...... when he wasnt pushing group economics and self reliance, separatism from mainstream society.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

yes i realize. but i hear his speeches... he was on that multicultural, minority wave. i'm not saying it's a bad thing.......... I'm just saying.
integration push.
minority push.
all humans , etc.

anyway, Malcolm x did push repatriation...... when he wasnt pushing group economics and self reliance, separatism from mainstream society.

I have about 50 hours of audio and video on my computer (probably every available clip on X) and I only remembered him mentioning repatriation one time. He said something along the lines of obviously we need to eventually go back to Africa, but we can't go back to Africa until we do right for ourselves here.

http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/gen_oaau.htm

And here are the founding documents of the OAAU. No where in there does he say the goal was repatriation back to Africa. He mentions that us in America should work with them, but gave 0 indication that we should leave.

And X wasn't pushing group economics perse. He was pushing black separatism (no real point in bringing up group economics when you're only around your own group to begin with).

 

[Hater Eraser]

 

[010101]

consolation*