Martin versus Malcolm

[Duemellon]

Would Martin exist if Malcolm didn't? Would we have had any results from a Civil Rights movement if one did not exist without the other? Would Martin have a day dedicated to his life if Malcolm wasn't there?

When we look back at the history books they are often portrayed as being parallel but unrelated. The actions and results by one is usually only written in a separate article with little, if any, mention of the reaction or affect it had on the other. It is as if they are always going to be separate in their lives, legacy, and impact on society. This, however, is not true.

One of the biggest fears for the dominate class (ie: Whites) was the disenfranchised class (Blacks) would become violent in an organized way (even if slightly). The potential for rampant violence spinning out of control was there, but along came two different icons for potential violence.

Malcolm X
He preached the idea that all people had the right to defend themselves from violence by using equal or greater violence. He didn't speak about starting the violence but was clear about matching or retaliating with violence. The media skewed his statements through sound-bites and altered context to make it appear he was calling for individuals to spark violence. His basic view on violence was to meet violence with violence and everything has the natural right to defend it's life and livelihood with force.

Martin Luther King Jr.
He preached the idea of showing restraint (to the point of martyrdom) in the face of violence. They had the capacity for violence, but they showed determination and became a tool for the society to see how ugly and unwarranted the violence against them was. If someone said they'd be non-violent and were, it is offensive to decency to see someone being violent towards them.

Capacity for Violence
Both were the iconic leaders of large organizations. Those large organizations involved a great range of age groups and both had a terrifying capacity for violence.

I believe King would've had some success without X, but I do believe that society, when comparing those two avatars of their organizations, leaned towards King. Which, of course, is sensible. When X would rattle his sabre even louder, they'd attempt to marginalize him while paying more attention to King's efforts.

"My partner doesn't care about rules"
It was like a big scheme of "good cop/bad cop" and they were inadvertantly playing off each other (actually, sometimes, they were openly and intentionally playing off each other). They did not exist in separate fishbowls and both helped the other in the effort to gain equality in opportunities by leveraging their group's potential for violence.

To Exist is to be Recognized as to have ever Existed
Now, I know, asking if King would "exist" without Malcolm may seem extreme, but his successes were highlighted by the potential of recipricol violence X promised. King is viewed, not just as a champion for equality but an example of avoiding uncivil unrest. Malcolm, in the same vien, proved to be non-violent, as he never led an actual attack or counter-attack. He simply stated something our society wholeheartedly believe in, and that was if:If you hit me, I have the right, and sometimes the obligation, to hit you back with equal or greater force.
We are practicing that today in the various wars, sports, and police-guidelines. Somehow King got all the good press.

[dannyboy]

I think King was embraced because his message was the idealized one. Malcolm not so much, because his message was just addressing reality. It's an interesting point you raise. Would anyone really have taken Martin so seriously if he hadn't been offering up a sanitized message to Malcolm's? Especially in a time when fear was rampant, and I would guess some degree of guilt too. I would imagine that King's message was even preferable for minorities as well. The thought of having to defend yourself violently can be scary too.

[markalot]

If you hit me, I have the right, and sometimes the obligation, to hit you back with equal or greater force.

But that's wrong and doesn't work, as you've pointed out many times. With that attitude the cycle will never end.

A hits B, B hits A. A thinks B hit unfairly so they hit back ... + 1000 years ... A hits B ....

If Malcolm had his way blacks would have suffered because whites at the time would have hit back and hard. Supremacists where looking for an excuse for violence.

We're not supposed to HIT, we're supposed to bring to justice. Justice may be death, but it's not a tit for tat.

[patio]

On the other hand is it possible that if MLK didn't exist to act as a moderate that Malcom X would have been dismissed as an extremist. Or at least not given as much attention

[Shlep]

But that's wrong and doesn't work, as you've pointed out many times. With that attitude the cycle will never end.

A hits B, B hits A. A thinks B hit unfairly so they hit back ... + 1000 years ... A hits B ....

I'm pretty sure that Malcolm X wasn't advocating violence, and the necessity of being willing, able, and prepared to "hit back" if need be simply for the sake of reciprocity, paybacks and catharsis; actually, I think he was pretty clear and unambiguous that this was not his position.

If Malcolm had his way blacks would have suffered because whites at the time would have hit back and hard. Supremacists where looking for an excuse for violence.

We're not supposed to HIT, we're supposed to bring to justice. Justice may be death, but it's not a tit for tat.[/QUOTE]

[Shlep]

But that's wrong and doesn't work, as you've pointed out many times. With that attitude the cycle will never end.

A hits B, B hits A. A thinks B hit unfairly so they hit back ... + 1000 years ... A hits B ....

I'm pretty sure that Malcolm X wasn't advocating violence, and the necessity of being willing, able, and prepared to "hit back" if need be simply for the sake of reciprocity, paybacks and catharsis; actually, I think he was pretty clear and unambiguous that this was not his position.

In a free society, the governed relinquish certain primary rights to the governed with the understanding that the government, in return, will uphold their end of the social contract and protect my secondary rights. Failing that, the governed reserve the right to defend themselves.

As far as it went with black people for most of US history stretching back before independence, these rights were not conferred on them; if anything, it was the government that denied them certain basic liberties and then heaped injustice them as often as not.

Malcolm X did not trust the government for certain obvious reasons, and saw no use for it. To him, it was folly to think that the American government and American society at large would suddenly do a 180 and extend equal rights and protections to black people. Malcolm X steadfastly advocated self-reliance and self-sufficiency as a means to elevate black America to a position of parity with America at large that the US government and society would be forced to reckon with.

If Malcolm had his way blacks would have suffered because whites at the time would have hit back and hard. Supremacists where looking for an excuse for violence.

I'm curious as to what you think the lot in society was for black people long before Malcolm X was even born.

[the happy prole]

It's really kind of hard to say. Malcolm X nowadays doesn't look like such an extremist. Isn't one major reason for the right to bear arms so that the citizens have the firepower to overthrow an obviously unjust government? Well, it's pretty hard to argue that the US Government at that point in time wasn't obviously unjust. The kinds of things Malcom X wanted weren't that much different than the things we wanted when we started the Revolutionary War. And he was probably less radical than many of the founding fathers.

And as long as we're on the subject, "separate but equal" was never put up for vote. It was tossed out in court. One could make a pretty good argument that Thurgood Marshall and some "activist" judges had more impact than MLK's attempted use of political and economic means or Malcom X's threat of revolution.

I don't think the idea of MLK needing Malcom X or vice versa really comes into play. I think both were inevitable given the circumstances. That's not to take anything away from either person.

[bestlaidplans]

Malcolm has the height advantage in this one but he's a little underweight compared to Martin... Malcolm in 4 rounds.

[markalot]

I'm curious as to what you think the lot in society was for black people long before Malcolm X was even born.

Why does it matter? The point is that King exposed the ugliness of the situation through non violent opposition. Malcolm was reinforcing stereotypes of blacks as violent aggressors who needed to be controlled. I don't think King needed anybody to help him show the humanity of blacks and the inhumanity of their treatment.

[Duemellon]

Why does it matter? The point is that King exposed the ugliness of the situation through non violent opposition. Malcolm was reinforcing stereotypes of blacks as violent aggressors who needed to be controlled. I don't think King needed anybody to help him show the humanity of blacks and the inhumanity of their treatment.Well, one thing that is a frequent mischaracterization of Malcolm is that he was violent. He was never violent (while leading the Black Muslims or later). In fact, all he did was posture & counter-threaten. He never made any promises or actions to pre-emptively attack or start a fight, in fact, he mostly showed force & made clear his intent of self-defense.

When it all comes down to it, the Black Muslims under Malcolm were involved in less violent encounters than the MLKjr-led group.

MLKjr's group was more disruptive. It was more confrontational & "in your face", & was responsible for sparking such violent reactions as to cause many injuries & deaths. Just think of it this way:Al Sharpton, in response to a perceived injustice, organizes a group of marchers to have an impromptu, unauthorized, unprotected, march through Philadelphia streets. His actions paralyze the city & put a heavy burden on their policing capacity & accommodations. When he is told to disband the march he refuses & continues on throughout the day unswayed by concerns of public saftey or other's right-of-way through the streets.

Subsequently, riots break out as unruly mobs and police attempt to disrupt the march causing property damage, a burgeoning swelling jail & such.

Now remember, this is Al Sharpton, not MLKjr. But the loud-mouthed self-egrandizing, powerhungry egomaniac, or at least, that's how he's portrayed in the conservative media.

Do you say the same thing? He found a way to show how hostile society is to the peaceful demonstrators.MLKjr was a divisive force. He wasn't recognized by the media as a good man on a rigteous mission using noble tactics. He was viewed like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson, except with more people behind him.

[markalot]

I'll have to think about what you said, but I don't see someone holding a peaceful march, no matter how disruptive, as an aggressor. Malcolm preached aggression. Much like Al Sadr (that cleric in Iraq), he's not aggressive, he's not pulling the trigger, but he's preaching it. Militancy is not what worked.

[silentpaul]

Militancy is not what worked.
It seemed to work for the US in our struggle for independence... ;)

[drougan]

It seemed to work for the US in our struggle for independence... ;)

Actually we signed a document first stating our independence, then fought a war to defend it from a then foreign army who disagreed, and signed a peace treaty to end it, and even that synopsis is oversimplifying (what kind of New Englander are you anyway?). War is diplomacy by other means, but its not the only means, or even the only effective means.

[silentpaul]

(what kind of New Englander are you anyway?)
lol :cool:

What's worse, I was a history major in college... ;)

I was just being argumentative in a chiding manner. Sometimes force is a necessary means of bringing about change, but change seems to be most effective when done peacefully and diplomatically.

But in the end, history has shown time and again that every system is flawed, whether it was the original system (say, Czarist Russia) or the one that replaced it (Soviet Union). All we can do is keep trying to improve things and work out the bugs. Let's just hope no Microsoft engineers get into politics...

[Duemellon]

I'll have to think about what you said, but I don't see someone holding a peaceful march, no matter how disruptive, as an aggressor. Malcolm preached aggression. Much like Al Sadr (that cleric in Iraq), he's not aggressive, he's not pulling the trigger, but he's preaching it. Militancy is not what worked.Sadr has had people pull the triggers. Malcolm never ordered a hit or shot to be fired. During his time in control of any organization they were not involved in any gunplay or assault.

He didn't preach aggression, he preached self-defense. During that time, preaching "self-defense" as a Black mean was interpreted as "aggression". After all, Blacks were specifically disenfranchised from defending themselves.If someone wanted to beat, punch, cut, shot, hang, lynch, or rape a Black person, & were caught, they might go to trial & would probably get off or a light sentence.

If a Black person was even perceived as being resistant to such aggression they could be killed on the spot.Malcolm preached self-defense. He lived it as well because his organizations were never attacked & they never attacked anyone.

[BigSugar]

This is an easy one folks.......how many Malcolm X Boulevards do you drive down on a daily basis? how many days off work do you get for "Malcolm X Day"?? exactly.

winner and still champeen! Martin Luther "No, not that Martin Luther" King, Jr.

[Shlep]

Why does it matter?

Well, in the post of yours I referred to, you said:

"If Malcolm had his way blacks would have suffered because whites at the time would have hit back and hard. Supremacists where looking for an excuse for violence."

Now then: when you state your belief that black people *would* have suffered if Malcolm X had been the prevailing/dominant figure in the Civil Rights Movement, I take this to mean that you feel being made to suffer would have presented a change in the existing state of affairs for most black people. The way I see it, nothing could be further from the truth.

At that time, suffering in some form or another was a central, defining fact of life for the majority of blacks in the US. Otherwise, I can't imagine why there'd be a an organized, concerted, and tireless effort by black people (along with quite a few sympathetic whites to boot) to secure what amounted to little more than simple equality under the law. I also doubt Malcolm X would have had much cause to be really pissed off and railing against the social climate of the day.

As for the manner in which whites may have been inclined to respond to Dr. Kings' tactics vs. the ones Malcolm X favored and why it would matter, I think it's absolutely essential to keep in mind that non-violent protests did not necessarily invite non-violent responses. I various parts of the South, nonviolent protesters were tear-gassed, sprayed with firehoses, had attack dogs set on them, and beaten senseless. For daring to engage in such blatantly provocative acts as choosing to sit on the wrong seat in a diner while eating or on public transportation while trying to get from Point "A" to Point "B," activists often found their lives at risk.

For his troubles, Dr. King himself was thrown into the slammer a couple dozen times, was physically assaulted, and has his house firebombed; similar hardships were endured by other leaders in his camp.

As far as white supremacists looking for an excuse for violence, this was hardly a problem. White racists tended to be quite adept at conjuring up reasons for attacking and/or killing black people. The simple accusation of a crime was enough to get a black person lynched, as was also the case with incidents involving blacks who did nothing more than forget their "place;" I've read numerous stories of black people being savagely beaten, lynched, and having their corpses subjected to still more violence postmortem (such as being set afire).

The most infamous example being that of Emmett Till, a black teenager from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi who, having been accused of whistling at a white women, was dragged from his bed in the middle of the night soon afterwards and then turned up three days later, floating in a river, beaten beyond all recognition (a ring he wore belonging to his father was the only way he could be readily identified).

[joebob]

For a minute I thought this thread might be Martin vs. Malcolm:

http://www.nndb.com/people/988/000025913/martin2-75.jpg vs. http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/021030/161132__frankie_l.jpg


Boy was I pleasantly surprised.

[markalot]

Now then: when you state your belief that black people *would* have suffered if Malcolm X had been the prevailing/dominant figure in the Civil Rights Movement, I take this to mean that you feel being made to suffer would have presented a change in the existing state of affairs for most black people. The way I see it, nothing could be further from the truth.

Would have suffered more, if that's possible, made less gains might be another way to say it. I'm not understanding the rather vigorous disagreement with my opinion. The white controlled media maligned both, but King made the difference not Malcolm. King got thrown in jail, not Malcolm, both were killed but Malcolm was killed by jealous members of the Nation of Islam ... lets call it an inside job.


I think it's absolutely essential to keep in mind that non-violent protests did not necessarily invite non-violent responses.


Yes, I think that's a key point. The non violent protesters where attacked violently, exposing the ugliness for all to see. If Malcolm was attacked after giving one of his speeches people would have shrugged it off, but this non violent man and his followers, marching for rights, and getting attacked for it? The proof is in the results.

Let me add an opinion to that.

Cincinnati, 2001, riots. Ugly scene, a setback if anything. What would have happened if blacks poured into downtown and peacefully blocked off the city in protest. Where would sympathies have been if the Cincy Police fired on the protesters?

Yea, it sucks, but you always have to keep the audience in mind if you want to expose wrong and change things. King knew that.

[Duemellon]

Actually we signed a document first stating our independence,...Well, technically the U.S. Government signed the document of equality for the Blacks to rally around & defend their right for equal opportunity. They signed a document at least 3x.

The right to rise up against an oppressive & unresponsive government is the intent of the Bill of Rights. Tools for a revolution include:Free speech
Right to assembly
Freedom of Religon
Right to legal representation
Right to fair trials
Right to not be unjustly incarcerated or punished

[Duemellon]

The white controlled media maligned both, but King made the difference not Malcolm.The reason why there was a such an impact is that both King's & X's groups had a potential for violence.

One group said they would never resort to violence & were attacked. The other group said they would resort to violence but were never attacked.Yes, I think that's a key point. The non violent protesters where attacked violently, exposing the ugliness for all to see. If Malcolm was attacked...To say "if" is missing one important result. X's group was never attacked & this wasn't due to being low profile, complacent, non-confrontational,... it was probably due to the fact they explicitly said they will defend themselves.

I serioulsy doubt it would've been ignored. There were no incidents during that era of an organized group of Blacks fighting back. If they did fight back, it'd be humongous.Cincinnati, 2001, riots. Ugly scene, a setback if anything.More happened through that violent outburst for Cincinnati Race Relations than the 30+ years since King's death. The changes were temporary, insincere, & an attempt to hide the issues, but it was more than anything else prior to the riots.What would have happened if blacks poured into downtown and peacefully blocked off the city in protest. Where would sympathies have been if the Cincy Police fired on the protesters?Nothing would happen. The incident would be underplayed & forgotten. The city would come to the defense of the offending police. No charges would stick against them and the nation wouldn't even give a rats ass.

I know that with confidence.

[DaHood]

For a minute I thought this thread might be Martin vs. Malcolm:

http://www.nndb.com/people/988/000025913/martin2-75.jpg vs. http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/021030/161132__frankie_l.jpg


Boy was I pleasantly surprised.OMG!!

:D :D

[Shlep]

This is an easy one folks.......how many Malcolm X Boulevards do you drive down on a daily basis?

There are a number of roads that bear his name in numerous cities, including (of all places) Omaha, NE.

how many days off work do you get for "Malcolm X Day"?? exactly.

One, but only when Spike Lee releases a biopic containing one or two (dozen) creative liberties about him. To the best of my knowledge, Spike hasn't been going around hobnobbing and schmoozing and trying to build interest among industry bigshots towards backing Malcolm X, Part Deus.

[markalot]

To say "if" is missing one important result. X's group was never attacked & this wasn't due to being low profile, complacent, non-confrontational,... it was probably due to the fact they explicitly said they will defend themselves.


What did they do?

Nothing would happen. The incident would be underplayed & forgotten. The city would come to the defense of the offending police. No charges would stick against them and the nation wouldn't even give a rats ass.

I know that with confidence.

That's it then?

[the happy prole]

MLK was a face man. He comes across like a nice guy because that was his role. The people behind the scenes like Thurgood Marshall and Edgar Nixon probably had a lot more in common with Malcolm X than they did with MLK in how they viewed things.

[Duemellon]

That's it then?I have to admit, I was baiting you on that one. I really wanted you to say: "No way" so I could show you something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_Riots#Thomas.27_funeral_incident

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~insurgnt/12.6/LTN.html
http://wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/5590b3.html
http://www.cincypost.com/2001/nov/08/bean110801.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/11/08/loc_3feds_wont_prosecute.html

[markalot]

Those are all POST riot, opinions had already been formed. I know, personally, I was ignoring all the news about it.

[Duemellon]

Those are all POST riot, opinions had already been formed. I know, personally, I was ignoring all the news about it.Thank you & I rest my case. Point was made & now you're just trying to retroactively justify your view.

As you said, it is because King exposed the ugliness in the system that he was successful and he got more press and action because of how embarassing it was.

There were riots before that. There were riots during that. There were riots after that. But somehow the abhorrent actions of the majority class pierced through all that other noise and static to shine on the shameful actions.

Now, in your own time, with your own eyes and experience, you look back and find reasons to dismiss the same thing happening on your clock.

[Duemellon]

What did they do?What are you asking? Please be more specific.

[markalot]

Now, in your own time, with your own eyes and experience, you look back and find reasons to dismiss the same thing happening on your clock.

Yes, exactly. You see if people behaved the way you want them too then there would be none of these problems. You always have to know and speak to your audience. King condemned the violence at every chance, he got through the noise floor.

Malcolm, on the other hand, was instantly ignored. Blacks listened, whites didn't.

[markalot]

What are you asking? Please be more specific.

What did they do that might have incited violence or get them thrown in jail by the white establishment? How did they avoid it?

[Duemellon]

Yes, exactly. You see if people behaved the way you want them too then there would be none of these problems. You always have to know and speak to your audience. King condemned the violence at every chance, he got through the noise floor.

Malcolm, on the other hand, was instantly ignored. Blacks listened, whites didn't.If I understand what you're saying is because Blacks acted violently, you do not have any sense of outrage they were assaulted by the police the next day when they were being non-violent?

I'm saying that, right now, you now know, there was an incident in your own city* while you were alive during a time of crisis. How do you feel knowing that, during that moment, the people in power did something as abhorrent as that?

Sure, you can put it in the context of the post-riots, but the point being that it did happen. Different day. Different group of people. Different intent by the people. Are you stunned?

[Duemellon]

What did they do that might have incited violence or get them thrown in jail by the white establishment? How did they avoid it?They marched. They held rallies. They blocked traffic. They called for boycotts. They refused the draft. They did a lot of notable actions. They confronted police in a peaceful way.

They were out there. They presented themselves as targets while saying "Touch me & I'll touch you back" and lo' & behold... unlike the King group...They weren't touched

[Sushi]

MLK modeled his message on Gandhi's message of nonviolent resistance. He did so because, in the long run, it is the most effective of making real change and, as others said, exposing the violence inherent in the system. Just wanted to throw in props to Gandhi. He was the whip.

I know people who were on the barricades in front of the Russian Parliament building in Moscow in 1991. They can attest first-hand to the power of nonviolence.

[Duemellon]

MLK modeled his message on Gandhi's message of nonviolent resistance. He did so because, in the long run, it is the most effective of making real change and, as others said, exposing the violence inherent in the system. Just wanted to throw in props to Gandhi. He was the whip.

I know people who were on the barricades in front of the Russian Parliament building in Moscow in 1991. They can attest first-hand to the power of nonviolence.Well, this thread wasn't really created to debate the power or effectiveness of non-violence versus violence, however, I will have to say that non-violence & violence both have their historical & lastng successes.

Violence, however, must be a temporary state. If a change continues due to violence or the threat of, it is simply transient or tenuous.

War
The strategic aim of war (the epitome of violence) is to eliminate the enemy's capacity or desire to continue the war. A war is prosecuted with the intent to create unmanageable chaos on the enemy side while maintaining as much order on your own. However, being violent yourself puts you in a state of greater chaos.

Violence (or threat of violence) is disorder. It can never be a permanent & peaceful state. It must be transient or the society will fall apart.

now...that said...

Non-Violence = Neutered
When tribal despots were overthrown, they developed a social/legal method to prohibit it by coming up with lineage-based rulers.

When kingships were being overthrown, they came up with an aristocracy class to preserve leadership.

When aristocracy was made obsolete, they came up with representative governments to preserve leadership

When representative governments failed, they came up with democracy to preserve leadership.

The non-violence employed during those times was effective in making a change. Since then society and government have adapted an immunity to those things so they are no longer effective. A look at other methods alluded to in the previous list, rule by combat, military coups, peasant revolution, etc. those verisame methods are less feasible because "government" adapted a degree of immunity. There are laws on the books, social reactions, press coverage, & other things which inadvertantly coordinate to reduce the effectiveness of any non-violent protest march in comparison to that time period. You can march one million immigrants through the streets for days straight but not bend the will of the government as dramatically anymore.

It is not that "non-violence", in and of itself is no longer useful, it is that the current means of employing "non-violence" are no longer useful. A new method of revolution must be developed. One previously untapped that comes at the system in a way it hasn't prepared for.

So is violence or non-violence a better tool for change currently? It really doesn't matter, the way we used them before is obsolete.

[markalot]

If I understand what you're saying is because Blacks acted violently, you do not have any sense of outrage they were assaulted by the police the next day when they were being non-violent?

I had none. I was mad about the senseless riots and figured the so called peaceful protectors weren't actually that peaceful. There was no rising voice of condemnation coming from the black community over the riots, instead it was just more anger and noise. Hey, maybe they were right, but I wasn't listening.

How did King get through, that's the answer. He never participated in a riot and condemned violence, people listened.

[Duemellon]

I had none. I was mad about the senseless riots and figured the so called peaceful protectors weren't actually that peaceful. There was no rising voice of condemnation coming from the black community over the riots, instead it was just more anger and noise. Hey, maybe they were right, but I wasn't listening.

How did King get through, that's the answer. He never participated in a riot and condemned violence, people listened.So,what I am gleaning from your posts is:In your mind there is no distinction between the rioters & the marchers at Thomas' funeral because of the rioters.Is that right?

silence is condoning
You do know you could quickly be proven wrong about the declaration that there was "no rising voice of condemnation"? It's one of those things about perception, media, & retrospective rewrites.

Retrospection is OK
However, let me get to this point though:
Now that you do know about the police shooting into the crowd of peaceful protestors, how it was smothered by the media in general, & the police went unpunished,...

Now that you do know, do you feel a sense of outrage at the violence inheirent in the system? Can you say that such actions should not have been overlooked/covered over? Can you say (as you suggested the majority of society said when viewing the King marchers) you got a glimpse of the unwarranted brutality & extreme reactions by the police in Cincinnati?

[markalot]

In your mind there is no distinction between the rioters & the marchers at Thomas' funeral because of the rioters.

Is that right?

That's correct and I believe that's how most people felt.

silence is condoning
You do know you could quickly be proven wrong about the declaration that there was "no rising voice of condemnation"? It's one of those things about perception, media, & retrospective rewrites.


You think you can prove me wrong, and I probably was wrong, but it doesn't matter. It's a battle of perception. Why are muslims losing to extremism? Perception. How did King get over this false perception? He broke through, you can't deny that, and if he was still alive today we might not be in the mess we are now.

It's not fair, but as you demonstrated in your viewpoint thread, you've seen the ugliness from both sides.

you got a glimpse of the unwarranted brutality & extreme reactions by the police in Cincinnati?

If I was a cop I might have done the same thing. How would I know when a peaceful but angry crowd would turn violent? How would I know if these were the same people who rioted or not? The riots were senseless, they made no sense. Cause was lost, no recovery.

[Duemellon]

You think you can prove me wrong, and I probably was wrong, but it doesn't matter.It's when you say things like that you come across as being intentionally ignorant.Even though I could probably prove you wrong, it doesn't matter?
Perhaps you're using sensational language, but it sounds like you're intentionally avoiding personal revelation so you can protect your view.

Let me make it a bit more clear that I'm talking to you, individually, at this point. I'm not wrestling with what our regional society saw. I'd like to know that you now know for your own sake. U'kno?How did King get over this false perception? He broke through,...I would suggest it was a novel approach that got him through. However, that approach has long since been accounted for & has lost it's shock-value.If I was a cop I might have done the same thing. How would I know when a peaceful but angry crowd would turn violent?After all the discussions we've had about how cops are not just "normal citizens with guns", you still use such a defense.

If you, MaL, as yourself with the experience you have being yourself in this society... I mean... like if TODAY you were given a gun & told to do crowd control, then yes. I could ask "Would I have done anything different?" However, if you went through decades of training & participating in crowd control (as the lead officer in this incident had), you would have a different set of criteria & responses than I would.

If I sat you down at my job with no training, you'd make huge mistakes, possibly up to losing millions of dollars for your company & generating a lawsuit. If I sat the same cops who shot on the crowds in my job today with no training, again, they'd make huge mistakes.

But I have the training to do my job as I've been training for decades.

Please don't project your set of rules & reactions to someone's rules & reactions who were trained differently for a different role.How would I know if these were the same people who rioted or not?They either knew they were not the same people, or they weren't sure if they were the same people. The police are not trained to fire upon a crowd of people without some reason.

They shot a 51-year old woman, an preadolescent girl, & some others. There were no 51-year old White women involved in the riots the day before. There were no preadolescent girls involved either. I think it could've been a safe bet that they probably weren't the same people.

[markalot]

Due,

your mistake is trying to teach me. Even if I admitted I cared it does nothing, I think what I wrote is an accurate representation of the prevailing views because I could easily have those attitudes and have had those attitudes.

I have nothing to defend except apathy, which I gave up defending a long time ago.

I disagree that the novelty of MLK's actions has worn off, there was nothing novel about it. He knew that to break through you had to remove the excuses for bad behavior and draw a clear picture of the inequalities in society. It's not perfect, it's more like swinging opinion from 40% pro to 60% pro, but it works.

Take the riots. People were pissed because an unarmed black kid, who was also a criminal, was shot in the back in a dark alley. I don't think MLK would have had much to say about this. That does not change the reality of the situation, it does not change what's fair, and it does not change who was right and who was wrong. It does feed perception.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v46/ai_15249649

You might find plenty to hate about that article, but the viewpoint is pervasive.

[Duemellon]

Due,

your mistake is trying to teach me.There's "teaching" & there's "informing".

You have established some hard and fast realities for your worldview that are defined and have boundries. When you declare them with a statement that it is the reality, there are things which I have facts, unrefutable facts, that say otherwise.

When I point to those facts, they aren't my facts, they're actual facts. When facts are contrary to your reality it should demonstrate that your worldview is innaccurate and you should revise them. If you intentionally disregard facts so you can hold onto faith, then you become an intentionally ignorant extremist.

So, if you chose to dismiss reality so you can hold onto your faith than you might as well strap explosives to your torso and blow yourself up in the checkout line at Kroger's to prove you're right. Why? Because you're just as bad as those other extremists at the very bottom of it all.

[markalot]

When I point to those facts, they aren't my facts, they're actual facts. When facts are contrary to your reality it should demonstrate that your worldview is innaccurate and you should revise them. If you intentionally disregard facts so you can hold onto faith, then you become an intentionally ignorant extremist.

I still don't think you're understanding what I am saying.

MLK had simple facts with clear examples. Your facts are corrupted by politics or poisoned by bad messengers. MLK had good decent people getting killed for trying to gain rights, you a series of criminals getting killed because they decided to run from a bad cop or fight when they shouldn't have. I think you want to ignore those facts. It's not a clear message anymore. Think of reading a book, you scan the back cover looking for a synopsis.

1. Innocent black man strung up by white gang while trying to register people to vote.

2. Unarmed black kid with criminal record shot while running from police.

Most people put down book #2, the subject doesn't capture their imagination. Book #2 might get great reviews and be full of facts, it doesn't matter, it won't sell. Your answer seems to be to force people to read book #2. I don't think it will ever work.

I think people see this:

1. Innocent man killed.
2. Black criminal shot.

[the happy prole]

How did King get through, that's the answer. He never participated in a riot and condemned violence, people listened.

Honestly? Because he had a truck load of help from people who were far more aggressive and confrontational (though non-violent) about change than he was.

It took them three marches to get from Selma to Montgomery. The first one is the one where all the famous pictures of the marchers getting gassed comes from. Wallace had basically said that was gonna happen and that police would be there to break up the marchers, not protect them. Having heard that, Martin Luther King didn't want to go. They went without him.

The second march, King stopped on the outskirts of the city because there was a restraining order preventing them from going in.

The third march the court ruled that the demonstrators had a right to be there. So they made finally reached Montgomery, and MLK used it to make his How Long? speech.

It's not like MLK was just a bit player. He made a brilliant speech that inspired people of all races. People listened because of his oratory skill, without doubt. But he had a stage in the first place because of other people's work.

Without that first march to shock the conscience of the US, or the attorneys who went and fought in the courts to get a permit, does that third march happen? I don't think so.

At no point here did King actually exercise civil disobedience. In fact, you'll find very few instances where MLK exercised civil disobedience. That's the difference between him and Malcolm X and other leaders, not so much violence vs. non-violence.

[Duemellon]

Your facts are corrupted by politics or poisoned by bad messengers.The fact being presented to you is:

Group of unarmed demonstraters are shot by unprovoked police.

I await your response to that line right there. You're doing the same thing they did back then, excusing such action with context when there is no context, whatsoever, where an unarmed group of demonstraters should be shot by police.

Why isn't this raising a red flag in your mind?

And please, pay attention to tHP's post. One thing our society has done is hero-fied MLKjr to the point where he's "the guy" who did stuff & people are busy sitting around for the 2nd-coming of MLKjr & that shit just ain't gonna happen.

[markalot]

Group of unarmed demonstraters are shot by unprovoked police.

I'm not excusing the action, I'm telling you I don't care. As a matter of fact I tried to tell you that I have no excuse for thinking the way I do. The riots made me put down the book.

As far as the MLK legacy goes, it doesn't matter. The fact is the people who got it going were not criminals in a dark alley. You're to busy trying to prove me wrong instead of listening to what I'm trying to say. I am wrong.

[Duemellon]

The fact is the people who got it going were not criminals in a dark alley.The people attending the funeral were not criminals. They were attending a fucking funeral.

[the happy prole]

I'm not excusing the action, I'm telling you I don't care. As a matter of fact I tried to tell you that I have no excuse for thinking the way I do. The riots made me put down the book.

Aren't you sort of proving Duemellon's point, though? You don't care. Maybe you should, but you don't. So no matter how pretty a speech MLK might have given on the riots, you wouldn't be listening.

I see your point, and it's one that wasn't lost on the Civil Rights leaders. They very deliberately chose to take on the public school system first because children are sympathetic victims. And they picked Rosa Parks because she had a clean record and was an old-ish woman instead of a young punk. But at some point, you run out of easy PR cases. No one is getting attacked for trying to register at school anymore.

Or look at it this way-- non-violent talks were so productive, then why don't we junk our nuclear arms and play nice with the UN? That's probably what MLK would do. You can speak softly all you want, but you don't get anywhere without the big stick.

[Phreon]

Malcolm X
He preached the idea that all people had the right to defend themselves from violence by using equal or greater violence. He didn't speak about starting the violence but was clear about matching or retaliating with violence. The media skewed his statements through sound-bites and altered context to make it appear he was calling for individuals to spark violence. His basic view on violence was to meet violence with violence and everything has the natural right to defend it's life and livelihood with force.

So Malcom X would have clearly been against gun control....

Phreon

[Shlep]

So Malcom X would have clearly been against gun control....

Phreon

Interesting...let's ask Malcolm what he thinks: Hey Malcolm, by any chance are you aga....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif

"SHHHH!! Keep it down over there! I think I heard something outside...sounded like 'Yeee-HAAAAW!

Never mind, I think I have my answer.

It's been quite some time since I last read The Autobiography Of Malcolm X, but I think I have a decent recollection of much of the stuff I found lodged in between the front and back cover. I also recall how it seemed to me to be a veritable mother lode of irony.

I invite you, gentle reader, to take a moment and pause to consider the sort of outrageous and reckless ideas and theories that this angry, threatening, bomb-throwing polemicist shouted from atop every soapbox and behind every podium he could. I shall condense them thus:


Buy a gun. Free people ought to have this right; they should also exercise it. You cannot assume that you can rely on the government to protect your rights. If anything, the government will rob you of them if you are not vigilant and/or can't be bothered to be the custodian of you rights. If anything
Don't ask the government for squat. Doing so puts you in their pocket while feeding the cycle of social dependancy that allows it to control you.
Economic strength and leverage is critical, and cannot be ignored or taken for granted if black people expect to be truly and genuinely equal and up to par with white people. This means black people must build a solid economic base of their own. This entails more black starting your own business and/or only patronizing other black-owned businesses to the extent possible. Keeping our money in our own community amounts to re-investing in ourselves.
Lay off the dope and booze; the more you sit around drunk and/or high out of your skull, they easier you are to control and keep dependent.
Go to church.
Take responsibility for yourself. Provide for your family, and keep it strong.


A lot of that sounds to me like it was cribbed straight off of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers. The rest sounds like a great platform upon which to run as the presidential hopeful heading up the GOP Dream Ticket for '08 (though Malcolm X would need a rather talented media consultant, not to mention the best spin team anyone ever recruited).

[Duemellon]

So Malcom X would have clearly been against gun control....

PhreonNot sure which way the sarcasm is going on that one, so I feel compelled to clear up by saying:He believed in the right to bear arms for self-defense against an unjust government/system

[Duemellon]

Now this discussion is making me wonder how much those efforts have stymied the future of civil rights. It's like, their efforts got us to the next step, but now they're disarmed.

Thanks to their sacrfices (Martin, Malcolm, & others) it is now "evil" to be racist. In fact, calling a white guy a "racist" is the equivalent of a racial slur. Being overtly racist is actually considered a sign of ingorance. Openly race-motivated crimes have become a thing that all of society reviles.

However,...
As has been explained before, in many ways, racism has a new look to it. It's this form of racism that is the legacy left behind by a campaign of bigotry that lasted for almost half a millenium. It's this type of racism which actively revises history to dismiss racism as an ingredient. It's this type of racism which disguises racism as human behavior. It's this type of racism that is passed down through gestures, practices, language, & other items typically considered to be parts of US iconography, history, & standards.

I Can Make it Go Away Through Logic
When clearly disproportionate results are shown, the details get dragged out & beaten into shape. The details then:become irrelevent to the outcome

are treated as mysteries, unknowable, or their connection is doubted

the numbers/results just appear skewed by racism but are really just chanceAgain, the 3 defenders of faith. But that's the thing, no matter what number, pattern, or other imperical data is shared, for this society, it "exists" but just not in that case.

If you say something exists everywhere, but everytime you look you make exceptions to why it isn't there, then isn't that the same as it never existing?If you say "Rain is never wet", but every time it has rained & it's wet you say "Today is an exception", then maybe you need to recognize the pattern in yourself.It's like this guy I knew who said he didn't like Black people. He said they were anti-social, unmotivated, and socially incompatible with him. Yet every single Black person I watch him meet was an "exception" to this rule. Doesn't that mean his reality & his view are not in sync?

This is what I mean, when you say it exists but can't find it anywhere, maybe you need to review what you're saying or how you're looking.

In Conclusion of this post
This is what the successes of the Civil Rights movement has left us with, equality on paper & laws to be enforced, but a bunch of excuses issued out by those in the majority as to why it still is quantifiably racist in result.

[the happy prole]

Didn't I point this out to you and Frost like, three years ago?

You'll never get anywhere trying to paint a specific event as racist, or even twenty specific events because in each case there will never be enough evidence to show it.

You'll never get anywhere trying to point out that people are racist because no one believes (and they're right) that they're the equivalent of Klansmen or Hitler.

Trying to convert a racist to being a non-racist via logical discussion is like trying to convert a religious person into an athiest. If someone were logical, they wouldn't have be taking either position in the first place.

You can only hope that someone is logical/non-racist and just made a boo-boo. In which case the easiest thing to do is simply point out some facts and they'll easily see the problem.

You guys can flame me all you want, but here's the honest-to-God truth. Most of what passes for debate here is laughable. There's almost no one who regularly posts on CE/P whose analytical skills are good enough to make a real tight argument capable of bringing someone around to your viewpoint by sheer logic. There's almost no one who regularly posts on CE/P whose reasoning ability is good enough that they could follow such an argument anyway. And there's definitely no one who's truly interested in such an exchange.

[joebob]

You guys can flame me all you want, but here's the honest-to-God truth. Most of what passes for debate here is laughable. There's almost no one who regularly posts on CE/P whose analytical skills are good enough to make a real tight argument capable of bringing someone around to your viewpoint by sheer logic. There's almost no one who regularly posts on CE/P whose reasoning ability is good enough that they could follow such an argument anyway. And there's definitely no one who's truly interested in such an exchange.
You're awesome.

[silentpaul]

You guys can flame me all you want, but here's the honest-to-God truth. Most of what passes for debate here is laughable. There's almost no one who regularly posts on CE/P whose analytical skills are good enough to make a real tight argument capable of bringing someone around to your viewpoint by sheer logic. There's almost no one who regularly posts on CE/P whose reasoning ability is good enough that they could follow such an argument anyway. And there's definitely no one who's truly interested in such an exchange.
This observation is not limited to message-boards, here or anywhere.

Most people won't change their mind on anything in response to logical argument. People more often respond to personal experience. Most -- though by no means all - of our opinions have become ours because we've experienced something that shaped us and the course of our lives.

The major exception is ignorance. We sometimes have strong opinions about things we know nothing about. This usually results in prejudices of all sorts...

[Duemellon]

You'll never get anywhere trying to paint a specific event as racist, or even twenty specific events because in each case there will never be enough evidence to show it.In modernity, to be specific. When they look back to pre-Civil Rights era they can find racist events without a problem, but anything contemporary is done in a different way & read in a different way.You'll never get anywhere trying to point out that people are racist because no one believes (and they're right) that they're the equivalent of Klansmen or Hitler.That, as you also know, is part of the problem. People measure their racism & racist results based on Ray Killen, Adi Hitler, & David Duke, which isn't the type of racism being fought or applied today.Trying to convert a racist to being a non-racist via logical discussion is like trying to convert a religious person into an athiest. If someone were logical, they wouldn't have be taking either position in the first place.True, true, thus the same "defenders of faith" come into play just as in religion/science debatesYou can only hope that someone is logical/non-racist and just made a boo-boo. In which case the easiest thing to do is simply point out some facts and they'll easily see the problem.Well, I'm not as pessimistic as you are about this one. If someone truly holds particular ideas dearly, I am interested in showing them what I know, but I'm interested in hearing what they have to say. Most of the time, however, those same people are used to discussions where they're being ignored.

I actually do want to hear what they have to say. I've learned a lot talking with MaL. Some things he doesn't want me to learn & some he did, but it's also entertainment. I am still stunned that he doesn't see it "this way" but it's only when he starts getting insulting or unhelpful that it gets frustrating.

For me, it's not a debate, it's a discussion.Most of what passes for debate here is laughable.You get no argument from me. I'd rather call it a discussion than a debate. Maybe that's why I persist while others get frustrated, scared, or too angry. They get personal & such.And there's definitely no one who's truly interested in such an exchange.When was the last time you've EVER seen a debate where, through the course of that debate, one of the participants said, "Holy shit! I've been wrong the whole time. I have no points to stand on. You are victorious and my previously held view is now worthless. Amazing! And thank you."?

Debates & arguments are for the audience, not the participants.

[markalot]

I'm not excusing the action, I'm telling you I don't care. As a matter of fact I tried to tell you that I have no excuse for thinking the way I do. The riots made me put down the book.

As far as the MLK legacy goes, it doesn't matter. The fact is the people who got it going were not criminals in a dark alley. You're to busy trying to prove me wrong instead of listening to what I'm trying to say. I am wrong.

I could attempt to translate if english isn't the preferred language here.

I think what Due said is accurate, except it needs to be applied to everyone including the poster. :)