Martin or Malcolm?

librasoul22 · #1 04-24-2002, 01:58 PM

I know this doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or question, but very few of Martin and Malcolm's ideologies were similar, so that's how I will phrase it. I was wondering who you guys felt carried the most gravity throughout the Civil Rights movement and why?

I will say that I think it is Malcolm X. First of all, he was far before his time. Second of all, I think that he realized that integration was a very short-sighted solution to racism in America. Think about it... really the only difference to me is that racism and oppression are just more covert now than they were in the '60's. Still just as prevalent, only now not as accepted. And when people talk about "gain's," especially when the oppressors speak of it, they phrase it as "African-Americans are now allowed to (fill in the blank)," or, "African Americans now have the right to (fill in the blank)." Why should anyone who is oppressed, has been for hundreds of years, want to live by the rights "given" to them by those who have been tyrannical and oppressive?

Martin was a revolutionary simply because he was able to get his voice heard. Why was he able to get his voice heard? Because the oppressors didn't mind hearing about this "peaceful, non-violent" integration. That was a threat, but not as threatening as in his later years when he began to move in a more radical direction. We see what happened then...

Malcolm on the other hand was in favor of seperation and self-defense by any means necessary. Sometimes that is taken out of context to mean a violent revolution, but Malcom was simply advocating self-defense if it was necessary. This was VERY threatening to anyone in power. They took his ideologies as ominous threats against their power. And while Martin was more focused on equality in political context (still waiting to see that one!), Malcolm was more focused on gaining freedom in a societal context.

Okay, lol, I am done with my diatribe. What do y'all think?

AKA_Monet · #2 04-24-2002, 06:27 PM

I think you should read a little bit more than what the "others" have written on both Civil Rights leaders... Even if you've read both of their books: The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Why We Can't Wait, I think that the scope of both leaders pursuance of "equal access and opportunity" fortifying the 14th Constitutional Amendment, "equal protection" suggests that their ideals are less divergent than one would read or see in the popular media.

Malcolm X still did a Hajj, a peaceful march for spiritual renewal to Mecca and it was an unheard of practice done by a popular United States icon...

MLK boldly stood on the doorsteps before racist Montgomery police to be arrested for trumped up Alabama segregation violations...

Your assumptions about who was the better Civil Rights motivational leader for changes in the African American community is rather incomplete. It took numerous individuals in both camps to attain the simple "blessing" you and I have been bequeathed.

Your statement of Malcolm's unacceptance of "integration" was similar to that as Martin's belief. MLK was for "desegregation"--NOT integration--fundamental difference...

And when I saw Betty Shabazz speak, she requested that we, as students, KNOW OUR HISTORY by reading documents that have enabled us to have rights that are Federally enforced--especially the 1964 and 1965 Civil Right's acts. She demanded for ALL of us there to KNOW WHAT THESE ACTS MEAN... Malcolm X obviously supported that concept--I think Betty Shabazz would have KNOWN...

Yes, we have more rights than available to us just 35 years ago (and I am 34 years old

). In no way do I think that racism and bigotry do not exist. But I do think that people of color, especially those of African descent, should KNOW how to battle and defeat the concept of white supremacy and europee-on concept of domination--cultural asili. I think think the erasure of these concepts should have more focus than plights of oppression...

Violence and war does not defeat these humankind ailments--just ask the Israelis and the Palestines that question... Two wrongs don't make a right--but it sho duz make it even...

No, IMHO, I think that the extinction of white supremacy and europee-on concept of domination will require a Divine rapture...

librasoul22 · #3 04-24-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
I think you should read a little bit more than what the "others" have written on both Civil Rights leaders... Even if you've read both of their books: The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Why We Can't Wait, I think that the scope of both leaders pursuance of "equal access and opportunity" fortifying the 14th Constitutional Amendment, "equal protection" suggests that their ideals are less divergent than one would read or see in the popular media.

Malcolm X still did a Hajj, a peaceful for spiritual renewal at Mecca and it was an unheard of practice done by a popular United States icon...

MLK stood on the doorsteps before racist Montgomery police to be arrested for trumped up Alabama segregation violations...

Your assumptions about who was the better motivational leader for changes in the African American community is rather incomplete. It took numerous individuals in both camps to attain the simple "blessing" you and I are bestowed upon, now.

Your statement of Malcolm's unacceptance of "integration" was similar to that as Martin's belief. MLK was for "desegregation"--NOT integration--fundamental difference... When I saw Betty Shabazz speak, she requested that we as students KNOW OUR HISTORY by reading documents that have enabled us to have rights seen by the Government--especially the 1964 and 1965 Civil Right's acts. She demanded for ALL of us there to KNOW WHAT THEY SAY... Malcolm X obviously supported that concept--I think Betty Shabazz would KNOW...

Yes, we have more rights than available to us just 35 years ago. In no way do I think that racism and bigotry do not exist. But I do think that people of color, especially of African descent, should KNOW how to battle and defeat the concept of white supremacy and europee-on concept of domination, which I think is more of the issue, that plights of oppression... And war does not defeat these humankind ailments... Their defeat will require a Spiritual conquest...

I was actually hoping that you would respond because I have a great respect for much of what you have to say.

One mere post could never do justice to either man's legacy or his contributions to Civil Rights. However, I think in the broader scope, one must realize that things have been GIVEN when they should have been TAKEN. Rights are not something to be distributed. Human rights are different than Constitutional rights, for sure. And I believe that MLK, Jr., who was more of a political activist, was fighting for the Constitutional rights of the minority. I am favoring Malcolm in this aspect because Malcolm was a cultural revolutionary. He recognized that the Constitution set forth by the founders of this nation was not only biased, but it wasn't even inclusive of the people that were trying so hard to live by it and be a part of it.

When Malcolm finally did take that trek to Mecca he became disillusioned with the state of the "American" Nation of Islam. Similarly, later in his life, MLK, Jr. admitted that the only integration that had been achieved was token integration. In Risks of Faith, James Cone says that MLK, Jr. was suffering from "naive optimism." Then and today, in my opinion, integration is only on paper. It has yet to be realized.

AKA_Monet, I know from your prior posts that you are well aware of the state of this society and I have always been very intrigued by your viewpoints. Thanks for the response!

*edited to note that I wasn't trying to diminsh anyone else's contributions to civil rights. I think my first post my have come off like that. I am simply using Martin and Malcolm because they are more widely known*

straightBOS · #4 04-24-2002, 07:50 PM

Question, what do you think would have happened if we tried to TAKE what we consider ours?

If they beat non-violent protestors to death, what would have happened during an armed insurrection?

I have to give it to MLK only because he had the foresight to see that we could never be heard by kicking ass and taking names. Even sympathetic Whites would not have given that message the time of day. Look at the Rosa Parks situation. Many other people had defied the Bus Seating Laws. But all had checkered pasts and were not good candidates for challenging the laws. They were all dismissed as trouble-makers. Violence would have gotten us nowhere.

No doubt, Malcolm had good ideas, and he definitely had a right to be angry--and show it. But, when you are not in the majority, every option is not available to you. And I think that over time, we have become so comfortable with what we have and what we can do, we tend to forget that.

All I can say is, MLK produced (or helped to produce) the results. And I cannot see how were going to get what we wanted if we unwilling to work within the system that existed then to make things happen.

AKA_Monet · #5 04-24-2002, 07:55 PM

First, I am attempting to become part of the Pan-Afrikanist movement--really advanced by John Henrik Clarke...

Secondly, in order to attain Afrikan Centeredness, it requires one to read and research various pieces of literature and develop an understanding and appreciation for history--the good, the bad and the ugly. The history of the diasporic people of Afrika, called the KiSwahili name MAAFA, did not start at enslavement. As you may be aware, it started well beyond that with civilization and culture. If you viewed the recent presentation called The Real Eve on the Discovery Channel , you would see how far back Our-story goes...

Anyhow, back our current situation. IMHO, Malcolm did not become disillusioned after the Hajj. I think it just got tough for him to reconcile his strong belief about man and the amerikkklan ideology of domination which was more prevalent then, than the insidiousness now...

IMHO, I think MLK made too many inaccurate political moves. However, I do not think it was due to his mental weakness, I think had more to do with a "big picture" the Untied States was focussing on, rather than the hatred at home. Just think, if President Kennedy was killed in 1963, when was the Cuban Missile Crisis? Before that... So the problem was that the former Soviet Republic DID have the capital to place NUCLEAR WEAPONS (of mass destruction and not those dirty bombs folks are talking about now) right on amerikkklan's back door!!! That is how space satellite technology got developed... And come to think about it, (white) man was flying all around up in space and landing on the moon by 1970... So, you KNOW J. Edgar Hoover and his gay lover weren't thinkin' 'bout NO MLK Nuckin' up alla dat chit... And basically, the FBI ALLOWED the Klan and their slaves to decimate what was going on in the South at the time... Hmmmm....

I think my parents that are your grandparents age, marched for noble reasons. Protested for THAT time which worked for THAT time. But this Jesse Jackson stuh, as great as man he has been and maybe in some ways still is, won't work against the demonic white supremacy and europee-on concept of world domination... Yes, it seems as though violence gives one immediate results. But at the same time, spiritually speaking, violence begets more violence.

What is it gonna take to cause racist thought extinction? That which overrides all thought--The Spirit and the Divine... How much will it cost? The price of freedom is death... Or rather, pain and suffering. And just like giving birth is painful, humankind may have to suffer to be "re-born". I say that because the "Word" on the (spiritual) street is humankind will be entering the Age of the Goddess--colloquially put a kind of Rennaissance. And so, since humans cannot stay static forever and change is inevitable, we either become extinct and die, or we embrace it and become enlightened... I know this sounds goofy. But look around and see what going on in the World today... Priest are pedophiles, the Tribes of Israel are fighting the Gentiles, Scientists ask "is that all I am?"... Signs are being posted regarding change... Who will be its agents?

AKA_Monet · #6 04-24-2002, 08:17 PM

straightBOS-

Historically, Nat Turner, Touissant L'Oveture (and many others) and the entire Seminole Nation did just that. Nat Turner got lynched along with Chief Crazy Horse... Whereas, Touissant L'Oveture et. al. decimated Napoleon's army in Haiti to become the first slave state of the West Indies to be freed...

More upto date, the Black Panthers did get in gun fight in the early '70s. The Symboinese Army robbed banks (Patty Hearst), and in OUR generation, what'chu think the 1992 LA Riots were about besides looting?

All this violence got us NO WHERE!!! And if MLK marched today like he did in the 50's-60's, he'd be "Toine" sporting orange jumpsuit as Bubba's beeyich in the State Pen--or on Def Row... So--too much for havin' non-violence for 2-DAY

Our best hope if to PRAY for self-destruction... But it looks like out-breeding works much better... Oh well--I cain't hep it if dey ain't got no kinna game...

Quote:

Originally posted by straightBOS
Question, what do you think would have happened if we tried to TAKE what we consider ours?

If they beat non-violent protestors to death, what would have happened during an armed insurrection?

I have to give it to MLK only because he had the foresight to see that we could never be heard by kicking ass and taking names. Even sympathetic Whites would not have given that message the time of day. Look at the Rosa Parks situation. Many other people had defied the Bus Seating Laws. But all had checkered pasts and were not good candidates for challenging the laws. They were all dismissed as trouble-makers. Violence would have gotten us nowhere.

No doubt, Malcolm had good ideas, and he definitely had a right to be angry--and show it. But, when you are not in the majority, every option is not available to you. And I think that over time, we have become so comfortable with what we have and what we can do, we tend to forget that.

All I can say is, MLK produced (or helped to produce) the results. And I cannot see how were going to get what we wanted if we unwilling to work within the system that existed then to make things happen.

librasoul22 · #7 04-24-2002, 08:20 PM

StraightBOS, a good point!
And that did not sound goofy at ALL AKA_Monet. In fact, it rang very true. Now how many people can digest such a concept is another story....

StraightBOS...you are speaking from a very realisitic point of view. In my frustration I am looking from the renegade's eyes. I see that for some reason, this "majority" has become the powerhouse of the "greatest nation in the world." I put those two in quotation marks because whites are BY FAR (like in the single digit range) the minority in the world as a whole. And whoever thinks America is the greatest needs to think again. Even though the word "greatest" implies a comparison, all one needs to do is look at history to see how screwed up it really is. Compare America to itself. Are we really better off? The only thing we have now that we didn't have back when, is technology so advanced that social control is made easier by the day. So should I rejoice that I live in a society where military intelligence can pinpoint my exact location 24 hours a day any time they please? This is the society that integrationists wanted to be included in?

That was not to discount MLK, Jr., just to say that his fantasy of integration (or indeed, desegregation), was not all it was cracked up to be.

By TAKE, I didn't mean necessarily with violence. But as wise men once prophsized, in order for a true revolution to occur, someone must die. Morbid, yeah, but true. And not saying that anyone should be sent out to be killed either. But in order to truly stand behind a cause, you must be willing to die for it.

For all the peaceful notions that MLK. Jr advocated, look at his fate....

straightBOS · #8 04-24-2002, 08:40 PM

librasould, indeed I feel your point of view. Especially, now when I think I am so comfy and at peace. I get so upset when foolsihness (i.e. racism) still has to creep in and steal my happiness. So believe me, I get a little "militant-feeling" when I want to.

But, along with technology, we have more information, hence the information age. I think that becasue we have so much knowledge to our disposal, we see ourselves as much more inofrmed and in some ways a lttle past the "non-violent-do-as-they-say" theory that most people think MLK adhered to.

Not, necessarily based on your post but based on the general feeling I get from my fellow collegians when we discuss "Back In The Day" and what we would have done if we were there.

I guess, I can't get with the violence because this country is not mine, I don't own it, I don't spin the media, what I think is not compiled and studied in anyone's polls, from the Nielsen's to the Gallup-- And this is 2002. So I guess, I feel that it had to have been exponentially worse in the '50s and '60s. That's why I often side with MLK, even though most people do feel that his means and ideals were a little short-sighted.

Good Stuff, thanks for starting the discussion.

AKA_Monet · #9 04-24-2002, 08:55 PM

For you both:

Sed this awhile ago on another post...

Don't hate

'Cuz if you hate, it means you ain't gett'n any

Or it's not gud...

'Cuz if you were gett'n sum and it was gud,

You'd have no reason to hate...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gettin' riled up 'cuz of those ignorant racists that you see on the Fox News Channel, ain't gonna get you to a higher being and thought where we should all strive to obtain...

Find Sancturary... Your MIND is your temple. Love, peace and hair grease...

It took a lot for an uprising. One small little woman decided to tell the big bad bus driver and mean assed cops a simple "No"...

But when I think about it, a "man" was beat down and asked to carry a huge tree down a little road with those sneering Him, then they nailed Him to another huge log and left Him up there to die... That Man rose from the dead on the 3rd day...

darling1 · #10 04-26-2002, 10:28 AM

TEACH SISTA!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
First, I am attempting to become part of the Pan-Afrikanist movement--really advanced by John Henrik Clarke...

Secondly, in order to attain Afrikan Centeredness, it requires one to read and research various pieces of literature and develop an understanding and appreciation for history--the good, the bad and the ugly. The history of the diasporic people of Afrika, called the KiSwahili name MAAFA, did not start at enslavement. As you may be aware, it started well beyond that with civilization and culture. If you viewed the recent presentation called The Real Eve on the Discovery Channel , you would see how far back Our-story goes...

Anyhow, back our current situation. IMHO, Malcolm did not become disillusioned after the Hajj. I think it just got tough for him to reconcile his strong belief about man and the amerikkklan ideology of domination which was more prevalent then, than the insidiousness now...

IMHO, I think MLK made too many inaccurate political moves. However, I do not think it was due to his mental weakness, I think had more to do with a "big picture" the Untied States was focussing on, rather than the hatred at home. Just think, if President Kennedy was killed in 1963, when was the Cuban Missile Crisis? Before that... So the problem was that the former Soviet Republic DID have the capital to place NUCLEAR WEAPONS (of mass destruction and not those dirty bombs folks are talking about now) right on amerikkklan's back door!!! That is how space satellite technology got developed... And come to think about it, (white) man was flying all around up in space and landing on the moon by 1970... So, you KNOW J. Edgar Hoover and his gay lover weren't thinkin' 'bout NO MLK Nuckin' up alla dat chit... And basically, the FBI ALLOWED the Klan and their slaves to decimate what was going on in the South at the time... Hmmmm....

I think my parents that are your grandparents age, marched for noble reasons. Protested for THAT time which worked for THAT time. But this Jesse Jackson stuh, as great as man he has been and maybe in some ways still is, won't work against the demonic white supremacy and europee-on concept of world domination... Yes, it seems as though violence gives one immediate results. But at the same time, spiritually speaking, violence begets more violence.

What is it gonna take to cause racist thought extinction? That which overrides all thought--The Spirit and the Divine... How much will it cost? The price of freedom is death... Or rather, pain and suffering. And just like giving birth is painful, humankind may have to suffer to be "re-born". I say that because the "Word" on the (spiritual) street is humankind will be entering the Age of the Goddess--colloquially put a kind of Rennaissance. And so, since humans cannot stay static forever and change is inevitable, we either become extinct and die, or we embrace it and become enlightened... I know this sounds goofy. But look around and see what going on in the World today... Priest are pedophiles, the Tribes of Israel are fighting the Gentiles, Scientists ask "is that all I am?"... Signs are being posted regarding change... Who will be its agents?

cleopatrajones · #11 04-26-2002, 10:35 AM

I don't want to say who played the most inflential role in the Civil Rights movement...but I will say that I side on the part of Malcolm X. I think this was said before that Malcolm X was a man ahead of his time. He followed in the foot steps of another man ahead of his time, Marcus Garvey, who is one of my heros. Malcolm knew that rights could not be given and that they had to be taken (by any means neccessary), which is somthing that people today don't seem to understand. Also, toward the end of his life Malcolm X was able to tie the struggles of Black Americans to the stuggle of people's of color everywhere. For structures to be broken down today there needs to be a revolution, and not just in the United States but worldwide. The struggles of the Kenyan are intricatly connected to the struggles of the Indian whose struggle is tied to the Colombian who's struggle is tied to the Palestinian (and on and on and on). Of course I cannot sum up the life of a man in my post but those are two in the list of many reasons why I favor Malcolm X. That's just my two cents.

DoggyStyle82 · #12 04-26-2002, 09:45 PM

LibraSoul and those that agree with her have some very under-developed and myopic viewpoints of history and the causes of both King and Malcolm.

librasoul22 · #13 04-27-2002, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
LibraSoul and those that agree with her have some very under-developed and myopic viewpoints of history and the causes of both King and Malcolm.

Dag, it's like that? lol

Can I get you to elaborate?

DoggyStyle82 · #14 04-27-2002, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by librasoul22

Dag, it's like that? lol

Can I get you to elaborate?

Certainly.

Malcolm and Martin worked in two vastly different areas which dictated their tactics. They were two vastly different types of people with vastly different backgrounds and history.

Malcolm was a self admitted criminal and drug addict who CHOSE his life of CRIMINALITY over COLLEGE. When he began his crusade to empower the Black Man, he was so marginalized that he was able to act outside of the corridors of power without any repercussions. Malcolm lived in the urban North where Blacks did not fear lynchings, bombings, and reprisals for speaking out. Even being a former criminal, Malcolm was never arrested or jailed again for anything. Not for sedition, for inciting riots, unlawful assembly, for speaking out against the government with its hand in the assassination of Lumumba, the president, even at his assassination!!Because he was financed by a private organization, he did not need the good will of those outside his organization to get agenda presented. His Hajj to Mecca enlightened him as to all of the deceptions that he had been taught by Elijah and that he needed to modify some of his doctrines based upon the truths that he discovered. Instead of thinking of the Blacks like King, who worked within the system, as "toms", he decided that it was easier to get change by getting coalitions to apply pressure. His new movement included non-muslims and was amenable to receiving some help from sympathetic whites.

Because Martin was middle class and educated, he had neither the hate nor bitterness that fueled Malcolm's speeches. Also, because he knew all whites were not inherently evil, that a few could be trusted and would be allies in engaging the sympathies of the larger white community who had the ultimate power in EFFECTING change, Martin did not take an adversarial position. As a Minister, he knew that his power lay in moral authority, not militancy. Because his rural, southern constituents were not nearly as educated, empowered, or as economically free as Malcolm's, a militant stance would have been implosive to the Freedom Movement. It takes a great deal of Moral Strength and Dignity to subjugate one's natural violent and defensive reflexes to sacrifice for the greater, unseen goal. It was this tool of "humility with dignity" that enabled power structures to fall, to enable "Brown v BOE", to liberate buses, water fountains, hotels, cafeterias. Remember, Malcolm was sexing white women in Boston at the same time that the Emmitt Till's of the South were being lynched for even whistling at a white woman. Martin was fighting for the dignities and courtesies that Northern Blacks never even considered. Malcolm was speaking and lecturing at Harvard before a Black was even admitted to the Universities of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia!!!

Yes, Malcolm taught us all how to give it to the white man verbally, with boths guns blazing. Pride in knowing our history, who we were are without the white man's whitewashing of history. Its easy to sit here 30 to 40 years later when we can go where we want, do whatever we please, say anything without impunity and say "yeah, Malcolm did it the way I would", "He aint take ish from the White Man!!" Of course thats easy to say when someone else already spilled their blood for you and did your jail time, received your blows and indignities in the Montgomery's, Birminghams's and Little Rock's.

Neither is greater than the other, although I believe that what Martin did took significantly more courage and moral strength, and his agenda and tactics have measurable results (laws, govt policies, etc)

AKA_Monet · #15 04-28-2002, 05:46 PM

DoggyStyle82:

I only wish I had your bluntness... Your explanations were very eloquent and clear. Maybe my angle of teaching was too reserved and conservative. I chose to teach and redirect thinking. And I really did not want to involve myself in a moot ideology and battle. Save that for the Cartoon Network's Justice League...

At any rate, most of these posters have never seen a "colored" or "whites" only sign! They've never seen a bus organized FOR segregation, whereas I was still riding those kinds of buses as a preschooler... Moreover, many of these poster's grandparents--OUR parents were actively involved in the Civil Rights struggle. I just found out my mother was sprayed down with water hoses on a MLK led march when she was in college

And, like you said, there are huge differences between MLK and Malcolm X, but toward the end of both their lives, they came together long enough to be photographed indicating some sort of level of unity within their practices and ideologies...

I must say though, in defense of Librasoul22 and others, I think their unresearched question or issue with these leaders is not which leader was more effective at civil rights, I think their issue is, if I understand them correctly, through all these struggles, sufferings and death for Civil Rights made by numerous figures in both "camps", whose ideology was far reaching for the liberation of Afrikan minds? Because the word on the street is just like (Uncle) Jesse's several mistakes and concessions, just like the money grab to suppress MLK center in ATL by The Family, and just like the marketization and "kinder and gentler" Malcolm X, is the only way to defeat racism is to take up arms and fight???--Of course an more spiritually guided person would refuse to make that suggestion, 'cuz violence begets more violence... And our pea-shooters are of little match to "their" nuclear weapons...

The word on the LA street is there will be another LA riot in 5 years... Folks have NOT learned their lessons by fire baptisms!!! So how does ONE defeat the NATURE of white supremacy and evil???

Personally, MLK's tactic was the best... And we must understand if we are for Afrikan liberation of the mind, then one cannot fight the beast with physical weapons... This battle is an Ethereal one...