MLK Malcolm X debate.

[Field Marshall Bradley]

harsh words.

we dont know what any of these brothas went through behind closed doors, or what their soul's motivation was... so at the end of the day we need balance in our perspectives.

and you dont really wanna go gun for gun with the beast trust me... the beast MAKES the fukking guns and tanks... how many nikkas you know with a rpg?!?!

cmon get real

Most people that talk about banging on the "beast" aint never bust a gun or been in a fight in they life....I think they are in love with the emotion that is evoked from that type of sensationalized rhetoric......

Good Post

 

[vaudevillevillain]

MLK is the reason our children think Christopher Columbus discovered America

 

[No1]

MLK is the reason our children think Christopher Columbus discovered America

With all that said, @Type Username Here, I think it's wrong to understate the genius of Malcolm X and his understanding of global issues. Especially in regards to African-Americans who were, and continue to be the most disenfranchised group in the United States. This is a man who intended to go to the U.N. General Assembly and charge the U.S. with violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He further sought to tie the African-American struggle into the greater struggles of colored peoples around the world occurring at the time. He recognized that while African-Americans were only 22 million in the US, they were not a minority worldwide. It is just that his goal had a singular focus. MLK's focus changed in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act which (a) was not as strong as he and others intended it to be and (b) as he saw the path towards improving the conditions of African-Americans as an economic task as much as a civil rights task. This is why he supported labor unions and began to work on issues of poverty, etc.

He got to witness how slowly society moved after the Civil Rights legislation came into place. It's hard to say how Malcolm X would've reacted given the time to perceive the same events.

 

[Type Username Here]

With all that said, @Type Username Here, I think it's wrong to understate the genius of Malcolm X and his understanding of global issues. Especially in regards to African-Americans who were, and continue to be the most disenfranchised group in the United States. This is a man who intended to go to the U.N. General Assembly and charge the U.S. with violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He further sought to tie the African-American struggle into the greater struggles of colored peoples around the world occurring at the time. He recognized that while African-Americans were only 22 million in the US, they were not a minority worldwide. It is just that his goal had a singular focus. MLK's focus changed in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act which (a) was not as strong as he and others intended it to be and (b) as he saw the path towards improving the conditions of African-Americans as an economic task as much as a civil rights task. This is why he supported labor unions and began to work on issues of poverty, etc.

He got to witness how slowly society moved after the Civil Rights legislation came into place. It's hard to say how Malcolm X would've reacted given the time to perceive the same events.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but that was sort of my point. In my opinion, the root of most of our problems are rooted in class issues and only one of them really addressed that significantly. I feel very comfortable in saying that MLK was probably the most prevalent Socialist in US history. He never took the eye off the ball, and his words to this day are extremely relevant. I sincerely believe that is why he was killed. You go check on those crowds in his post-CRA speeches regarding class, greed, and war, and you can notice that a lot of white youth started to take notice, especially during the Counter-Revolution time of that decade. That must have been very troubling to certain people; a magnetic, energetic and popular nobel peace prize winner who was taking every chance to shyt on capitalism, greed, MIC and so on.

I seem to understand that if you're black and you had and continue to have these racial issues how much more powerful Malcolm's words are, especially if you have pent up anger and frustration. But let's not forget that there was a post-NOI Malcolm as well and he ended up walking back on a lot of things he said, even towards Dr. King.

 

[No1]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but that was sort of my point. In my opinion, the root of most of our problems are rooted in class issues and only one of them really addressed that significantly. I feel very comfortable in saying that MLK was probably the most prevalent Socialist in US history. He never took the eye off the ball, and his words to this day are extremely relevant. I sincerely believe that is why he was killed. You go check on those crowds in his post-CRA speeches regarding class, greed, and war, and you can notice that a lot of white youth started to take notice, especially during the Counter-Revolution time of that decade. That must have been very troubling to certain people; a magnetic, energetic and popular nobel peace prize winner who was taking every chance to shyt on capitalism, greed, MIC and so on.

I seem to understand that if you're black and you had and continue to have these racial issues how much more powerful Malcolm's words are, especially if you have pent up anger and frustration. But let's not forget that there was a post-NOI Malcolm as well and he ended up walking back on a lot of things he said, even towards Dr. King.

Both of their experiences are rooted in African-American's conditions in American society. The empowerment of this group of people is what they both strove for initially. It is fair to say that MLK expressed misgivings about capitalism earlier on, but always walked the line not to come across as a communist or a socialist early on. It was always in the moral background of his belief system. I believe you go too far in calling him the most prevalent socialist in US history. Many of his misgivings about capitalism were shared by those who would not call themselves socialists. Many Southern Democrats at the time would merely call for tweaking the way things were (see LBJ war on poverty). While he did begin to support movements and policies and make an overall shift towards a Democratic Socialism, I think you're using somewhat misleading language to fit a complex figure into a menu that you find appetizing. I don't understand where what Malcolm supposedly walked back that lessened his perspective on class issues.

"I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don't think it will be based upon the color of skin."and also "It is incorrect to classify the revolt of the Negro as simply a radical conflict of black against white, or as a purely American problem. Rather, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter." - Malcolm X (1965).

I get that from your perspective class is more important to focus on than race (and you're not wrong), which is why the often inflammatory Malcolm might not be as appealing to you but let's not pretend he did not recognize class issues or was losing sight of the greater point. Class and race, have always been, and always will be intertwined in American society and across the world. They were intertwined even more flagrantly during his time. He spoke during an era where the entire world was breaking free of exploitation rooted in racism and dehumanization. He had every right to say that you cannot have capitalism without racism. Let's also not pretend that he, MLK and others were not all evolving (not transforming because the seeds of socialist policies were always there for MLK) in their views and considering different systems as the entire world was doing the same.

As far as assassinations go Hoover directed the FBI to,

"Prevent the rise of a 'messiah' who could unify and electrify the militant black nationalist movement. Malcolm X might have been such a 'messiah'... . Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael, and [Nation of Islam leader] Elijah Muhammed [sic] all aspire to this position ... . King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed 'obedience' to 'white, liberal doctrines' (nonviolence)."

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're unintentionally selling Malcolm a bit short.

 

[Blackking]

 

[Type Username Here]

Both of their experiences are rooted in African-American's conditions in American society. The empowerment of this group of people is what they both strove for initially. It is fair to say that MLK expressed misgivings about capitalism earlier on, but always walked the line not to come across as a communist or a socialist early on. It was always in the moral background of his belief system.

It's because Christianity contains a lot of what we now would consider socialism and marxism [aside from the obvious conflict with abandoning religion]. No doubt his first priority was to attain equality, I'm not saying that at all, but he had a much broader goal from the beginning:

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear.

I believe you go too far in calling him the most prevalent socialist in US history. Many of his misgivings about capitalism were shared by those who would not call themselves socialists. Many Southern Democrats at the time would merely call for tweaking the way things were (see LBJ war on poverty). While he did begin to support movements and policies and make an overall shift towards a Democratic Socialism, I think you're using somewhat misleading language to fit a complex figure into a menu that you find appetizing. I don't understand where what Malcolm supposedly walked back that lessened his perspective on class issues.

I meant Malcolm walked back on some his earlier statements about Dr. King. As far as Dr. King and socialism, I think reading the speeches of his last year alive leaves no doubt where he stood. It was far to the left of most Democrats at the time.

I get that from your perspective class is more important to focus on than race (and you're not wrong), which is why the often inflammatory Malcolm might not be as appealing to you but let's not pretend he did not recognize class issues or was losing sight of the greater point. Class and race, have always been, and always will be intertwined in American society and across the world. They were intertwined even more flagrantly during his time. He spoke during an era where the entire world was breaking free of exploitation rooted in racism and dehumanization. He had every right to say that you cannot have capitalism without racism. Let's also not pretend that he, MLK and others were not all evolving (not transforming because the seeds of socialist policies were always there for MLK) in their views and considering different systems as the entire world was doing the same.

I don't take issue with anything you said here aside from the reference about not having capitalism without racism.

 

[WaveGang]

mlk was an agent

 

[OsO]

mlk was an agent

you're gonna have to present some evidence, logic, and reason if you make a statement like that good brotha

 

[CASHAPP]

to my avatar


Malcolm X and King never had the chance, though, to explore an alliance.
Malcolm X was assassinated in Harlem in 1965. King was murdered three years later.
Both were 39 at the time of their death. Both had been abandoned by former supporters. And both left virtually no money to their wives and young children because they refused to profit from their activism.
The photo of their meeting endures. It was taken because both men happened to be in the Capitol building that day to listen to politicians debate the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would later pass.

you heard that @Al Sharpton?

 

[intilectual recipricol]

I wrote a paper on this in my "Theories of Non-Violence" course when I was in college; I wish I still had it, but its saved on a floppy somewhere

But, by and large I am more in line with Malcolm... then and now. I do not believe we can attain justice through a system that is corrupted and against us. It was true then, it is true today. One only needs to look at Trayvon Martin to see that. The fact that the system had allowed the circumstances in the first place tells you it cant be trusted to bring about the needed change. They have to know that if we dont get the considerations that every other American gets then they are going to have to pay in blood or eradicate us. The latter wouldve put exactly the same pressure on them that pictures of fire hoses and attack dogs being put on marchers did. It probably wouldve bolstered the case to the UN too.

Now in hindsight things are still fukked up and they got shyt like "playing the victim" as a way to ignore the ills that still plague us. If they were worried about that shotgun blast if they didnt do the right thing we'd be in a different position. They know that too. We're the only group that was ever expected to be servile in order to gain our rights. Look everywhere else and you'll see that when they were slighted, even to a much lesser extent, someone had to die. Instead, here in America, the people doing the dying are the ones "fighting" for equality... MLK, MX, JFK, Lincoln... (even though I woulda smacked that top hat off his head)

I dont see how this is much of a debate TBH

 

[Type Username Here]

I wrote a paper on this in my "Theories of Non-Violence" course when I was in college; I wish I still had it, but its saved on a floppy somewhere

But, by and large I am more in line with Malcolm... then and now. I do not believe we can attain justice through a system that is corrupted and against us. It was true then, it is true today. One only needs to look at Trayvon Martin to see that. The fact that the system had allowed the circumstances in the first place tells you it cant be trusted to bring about the needed change. They have to know that if we dont get the considerations that every other American gets then they are going to have to pay in blood or eradicate us. The latter wouldve put exactly the same pressure on them that pictures of fire hoses and attack dogs being put on marchers did. It probably wouldve bolstered the case to the UN too.

Now in hindsight things are still fukked up and they got shyt like "playing the victim" as a way to ignore the ills that still plague us. If they were worried about that shotgun blast if they didnt do the right thing we'd be in a different position. They know that too. We're the only group that was ever expected to be servile in order to gain our rights. Look everywhere else and you'll see that when they were slighted, even to a much lesser extent, someone had to die. Instead, here in America, the people doing the dying are the ones "fighting" for equality... MLK, MX, JFK, Lincoln... (even though I woulda smacked that top hat off his head)

I dont see how this is much of a debate TBH

You don't see how this is a debate because you only look at Malcolm through his NOI days. The man was kicking a lot of wisdom post-NOI, including walking back some of what he said. The opposite is true for MLK. Towards the end he was low key kicking some revolution shyt.

When the White America has finished painting MLK in the light they wish to remember him best by, maybe we'll start paying attention to what he was really saying.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

You don't see how this is a debate because you only look at Malcolm through his NOI days. The man was kicking a lot of wisdom post-NOI, including walking back some of what he said. The opposite is true for MLK. Towards the end he was low key kicking some revolution shyt.

When the White America has finished painting MLK in the light they wish to remember him best by, maybe we'll start paying attention to what he was really saying.

No, I paid attention to MX's post NOI days. What he walked back was an isolationist stance. He didnt think we should stand around while fire hoses and attacked dogs were put on us. And I agree, they paint MLK in a certain light to make him more palatable to white folks. They do the same with Hellen Keller (if you can study up on her she was much more than learning to read braille).

Regardless of the name attached to the ideology, I dont agree with working through a broken system to get the needed change, and history has bore that fact as the Civil Rights Movement was a failure unless success is simply changing the laws without the quantifiable results from change in people's lives.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Most people that talk about banging on the "beast" aint never bust a gun or been in a fight in they life....I think they are in love with the emotion that is evoked from that type of sensationalized rhetoric......

Good Post

Doesnt matter. Let another man threaten your wife, your kids, and that dude that never bust a gun will likely easily pull the trigger. Fight or flight is a part of human nature.

 

[Type Username Here]

No, I paid attention to MX's post NOI days. What he walked back was an isolationist stance. He didnt think we should stand around while fire hoses and attacked dogs were put on us. And I agree, they paint MLK in a certain light to make him more palatable to white folks. They do the same with Hellen Keller (if you can study up on her she was much more than learning to read braille).

Regardless of the name attached to the ideology, I dont agree with working through a broken system to get the needed change, and history has bore that fact as the Civil Rights Movement was a failure unless success is simply changing the laws without the quantifiable results from change in people's lives.

The Civil Rights Movement was a "failure" (more like a compromise) because it was never allowed to go into the next phase. Almost all of those Civil Right Movement leaders understood that Capitalism was the ultimate enemy.