Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · (09-04-2012 04:29 AM)

I'm sure Malcolm X was a great man and all, but god damn he was a dick.

**NWOkiller** · 02-07-2012, 06:51 AM

I think cause Malcolm came from the streets, that's why he comes across like that. I'm not sure when this debate took place, but after his split with the NOI, he had a change in what he believed.

**El Mono** · 02-07-2012, 06:54 AM

I don't see how Malcolm is a "dick" ?

I think he had the right idea when he stated that MLK's ideals were ultimately useless, being non-violent mattered nothing to your average 1960s white man, just made lynching easier.

**Asshole** · 02-07-2012, 07:48 AM

mlk was a great person but a terrible revolutionary

**Fuzzly Bear** · 02-07-2012, 08:31 AM

Their attitudes and philosophies are quite nicely reflected in their individual manners of speech.

"Progress is not an illusion; it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing"

I read something 'recently' about how Ghandi's success had nothing to do with Ghandi or his movement. Interesting stuff really.

**Asshole** · 02-07-2012, 08:34 AM

<bhagat singh

**Younes** · 02-07-2012, 04:59 PM

I think that Malcolm's post Nation of Islam ideals where far better to apply to the issue of oppression of blacks in USA.
There I said it, let the storm of shit begin..

**Djoser** · 02-07-2012, 05:34 PM

Didn't MLK become more aggressive in his latter years while Malcolm became more passive in his?

Either way pussyfooting about during that time was not the best idea. Malcolm is often labeled as some sort of asshole because he was more militant and society don't want that 'cause it's bad, mkay? Violence is bad, mkay?

**El Mono** · 02-07-2012, 06:05 PM

Younes' point is the one I was making but more specific. After he came back from Mecca was when he stated his best ideals. Malcolm was by no means "passive" he still believed in the right to defence in the face of racism/oppression and that black unity had to happen before multicultural unity in the US.

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · 02-07-2012, 06:20 PM

I don't know who was "pussyfooting" around at that time but I certainly do see MLK's point. At the surface of it, sure, Malcolm X's original position of violence against their aggressors sounds good. But when you think about the reality of it, imagine a group of negros having rose up and attacking the institutions of their oppression (e.g. a police station, etc). What would happen? How would that be positive to either them or their movement? It would have been a fucking massacre, and even worse, a massacre that would be justified by most of the population. What are the chances of these groups fighting for their freedoms of garnering mass support when they are openly calling, or even just acting, for violence. Again, ideologically violence sounds great. Lets pull a Che Guevara on these motherfuckers. Practically, that is probably one of the least effective things they could do. It might actually be detrimental to their cause, turning people off. You have to think about the average mother fucker, the white people, etc, sitting around in their house with their families and such. Sure, they might feel upset about the situation and conditions in which blacks live, but if you are threatening violence against them or in their neighborhoods, they are going to shut you out completely. MLK's methodology is much more effective, just in my opinion of course. It allowed popular support. I would argue that MLK made much more gains for the civil rights movement than Malcolm. I don't think violence is wrong, in and of itself, but in this particular situation I don't see how realistically you could have used it to achieve the desired means.

**Djoser** · 02-07-2012, 06:56 PM

See, Malcolm never promoted attacking, he promoted defense. If the popo released the hounds on you, you had the right to fight back physically. Fight fire with fire. Only when provoked. Never be the aggressor. MLK was nonviolence whatsoever.

You're confusing this with what groups like the Black Panthers did. Their eventual disbandment coupled with still blinded and unguided youth led to the Crips and Bloods.

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · 02-07-2012, 07:14 PM

I would still argue that MLK's ideals were more effective overall. Obviously, it wasn't a fun option but overall it seemed to have laid the groundwork for the "success" of the civil rights movement. Like I said, I do believe in self-defense and all that shit, and if that was happening to me, I would be the first motherfucker to get shot by the cops for having stolen a club and beaten some heads in. I don't think MLK's solution was a one size fits all kinda deal, it worked well in the context of what was happening, but might not be very applicable to every situation. However, if it is just self-defense then it really isn't doing anything for the movement itself, its just saying to fight back. Seems rather passive to me. MLK's civil disobedience is arguably more "violent" (towards the system). Again, these are just my opinions, and I agree with Malcolm mostly, but I just don't find it particularly advantageous to the black community and their struggle as a whole.