Current Events > Seems like Malcom X gets swept to the side, why don't we celebrate him more?

(+) Yeah! (+)

this thread is....very interesting.
---

The Admiral posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

He was pro-black and unapologetic about it. Those type of people are viewed as a threat.

He didn't advocate violence and explicitly stated that in many of his speeches, BUT he believed in self defense.

That's what he technically said, but then he undermined that using the same logic as groups like Antifa, by claiming that black people were under a perpetual state of oppression from whites, thus justifying violence as "self-defense" in almost any scenario. To them, violence is always justified if it's being targeted against "oppressors."

It was in the height of the Civil Rights movement. Black people WERE in a state of perpetual oppression at that time, they couldn't drink from the same water fountain. They did not have full rights as US citizens and people were jailed, killed/lynched for having the audacity to fight for equal rights.
---

The Admiral posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Admiral: "Malcolm X doesn't really mean what he says because I don't believe him. I don't have direct examples of him as an individual, but trust me. he's lying."

Ricky: I think a racist who incited violence deserves more respect than the Founding Fathers of the U.S.

Admiral: "I think the founding fathers, who owned and abused slaves, were better in character than a slave descendant who got educated and preached peace before he died."
---

Milkman5 posted...

He gave it up near the end of his life when he realized that the Nation of Islam has nothing to do with actual Islam so Nation of Islam black nationalists assassinated him

Aaaactually, he left citing corruption / moral deviance on the part of its leader, and the fact that they were silencing him for being so popular and outspoken.

He had contacts in the Middle East and Africa that encouraged him to become a Sunni a while thereafter.

I'd say he was at his philosophical pinnacle between leaving the NOI and going orthodox.
---

I respect both highly, but I've always leaned more towards Malcolm X's platform of self-preservation than MLK's strive for peaceful protest
---

boxington posted...

I respect both highly, but I've always leaned more towards Malcolm X's platform of self-preservation than MLK's strive for peaceful protest

One was effective at actually helping black people get equal rights, one was not. Not sure why you'd have more appreciation for the failed approach.
---

In middle school we were taught that MLK was basically Obi Wan Kenobi and Malcom X was basically Darth Vader.
---

The Admiral posted...

One was effective at actually helping black people get equal rights, one was not. Not sure why you'd have more appreciation for the failed approach.

In reality, it was just political good-cop-bad-cop.

What helped black people get equal rights was Booker T. Washington's ethos in action, which facilitated accomplishment of such a magnitude that it just made segregation and racial discrimination look increasingly stupid.
---

Milkman5 posted...

This is all from Wikipedia, this is very public and well documented information

From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. These included the beliefs:

that black people are the original people of the world[86]
that white people are "devils"[87]
that blacks are superior to whites, and
that the demise of the white race is imminent.[88]

Yakub (sometimes spelled Yacub or Yaqub) is a mythological figure of the Nation of Islam (NOI). According to the story, Yakub was a black scientist who lived "6,600 years ago" and began the creation of the white race to be a "race of devils." He is said to have done this through a form of selective breeding referred to as "grafting", while living on the island of Patmos.

You can read about Yakub here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)

sounds like Malcom X was a fucking lunatic
---

and what if MLK's hopes, at least to some extent, weren't realized? even long after the the two died, there was racial strife.

if you were part of a group that was treated as second class citizens for generations, wouldn't you want to ensure that you can somehow fortify your place in the world?
---

Transcendentia posted...

Milkman5 posted...

This is all from Wikipedia, this is very public and well documented information

From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. These included the beliefs:

that black people are the original people of the world[86]
that white people are "devils"[87]
that blacks are superior to whites, and
that the demise of the white race is imminent.[88]

Yakub (sometimes spelled Yacub or Yaqub) is a mythological figure of the Nation of Islam (NOI). According to the story, Yakub was a black scientist who lived "6,600 years ago" and began the creation of the white race to be a "race of devils." He is said to have done this through a form of selective breeding referred to as "grafting", while living on the island of Patmos.

You can read about Yakub here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)

sounds like Malcom X was a fucking lunatic

Nation of Islam is a racist cult, that I'm not even sure really shares anything substantial with real Islam.
---

MLK - or at least the way he commonly gets portrayed nowadays - is kinda like "baby's first civil rights hero"

social change comes from radical people. the people who benefit from the status quo know this, and it scares them
---

If Malcom X didn't exist and it was just King and he got killed accordingly and there were no riots at all, just nothing but peaceful protest, we'd still be treated as second class citizens today. We needed both of them. Those riots were horrible but they were needed and anyone whose thinks they weren't isn't in tune with reality. As I said before, just being peaceful solves nothing as the one oppressing you can continue on ignoring you without fear of retribution, it's as stupid as thinking that simply ignoring a bully will make them get tired and leave you alone.
---

social change doesn't come from radical people at all. there was nothing really radical about what MLK did, and yet he effected tremendous change.

the lunatics who think that radicalism are necessary for change are just hungry for violence and conflict. that's all there is to it. it's no different than what ISIS and other terrorist organizations say before they get forcibly shut down.
---

tremain07 posted...

If Malcom X didn't exist and it was just King and he got killed accordingly and there were no riots at all, just nothing but peaceful protest, we'd still be treated as second class citizens today. We needed both of them. Those riots were horrible but they were needed and anyone whose thinks they weren't isn't in tune with reality. As I said before, just being peaceful solves nothing as the one oppressing you can continue on ignoring you without fear of retribution, it's as stupid as thinking that simply ignoring a bully will make them get tired and leave you alone.

The riots did nothing productive. The goal of the peaceful protests was that they got sympathetic whites on board with civil rights, which put enough pressure on political leaders that they had to work with MLK on the Civil Rights Bill whether they really wanted to or not.
---

The Admiral posted...

tremain07 posted...

If Malcom X didn't exist and it was just King and he got killed accordingly and there were no riots at all, just nothing but peaceful protest, we'd still be treated as second class citizens today. We needed both of them. Those riots were horrible but they were needed and anyone whose thinks they weren't isn't in tune with reality. As I said before, just being peaceful solves nothing as the one oppressing you can continue on ignoring you without fear of retribution, it's as stupid as thinking that simply ignoring a bully will make them get tired and leave you alone.

The riots did nothing productive. The goal of the peaceful protests was that they got sympathetic whites on board with civil rights, which put enough political pressure on political leaders that they had to work with MLK on the Civil Rights Bill.

Exactly. Not to mention that MLK was extremely opposed to violence.
---

https://ivn.us/2016/07/08/martin-luther-king-jr-said-violence-protest/
---

I mean, if white Americans didn't believe that black people rioting was a real possibility if the peaceful path didn't work, then it would have been harder to "sell" MLK's vision.

violence isn't always productive, but the potential for it can sometimes be.
---

Transcendentia posted...

social change doesn't come from radical people at all. there was nothing really radical about what MLK did, and yet he effected tremendous change.

the lunatics who think that radicalism are necessary for change are just hungry for violence and conflict. that's all there is to it. it's no different than what ISIS and other terrorist organizations say before they get forcibly shut down.

It's not radical to demand equal protection under the law or to be respected as human beings, OR to not stand idly by when it comes to abuse from law enforcement from the Bull Conners of the world.

Both Malcolm and MLK were needed, they were yin and yang. MLK WAS radical when you consider the social and political climate at the time, he just had a different philosophy than Malcolm. MLK also believed in reparations.
---

“I contend that the cry of “Black Power” is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
---

boxington posted...

I mean, if white Americans didn't believe that black people rioting was a real possibility if the peaceful path didn't work, then it would have been harder to "sell" MLK's vision.

violence isn't always productive, but the potential for it can sometimes be.

if anything, the rioting had a huge negative affect on the black community's leveraging power. the black community lost because of the rioting. it didn't gain. that's what MLK was afraid of, especially since no amount of rioting would be useful in shifting the power paradigm.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

Transcendentia posted...

social change doesn't come from radical people at all. there was nothing really radical about what MLK did, and yet he effected tremendous change.

the lunatics who think that radicalism are necessary for change are just hungry for violence and conflict. that's all there is to it. it's no different than what ISIS and other terrorist organizations say before they get forcibly shut down.

It's not radical to demand equal protection under the law or to be respected as human beings, OR to not stand idly by when it comes to abuse from law enforcement from the Bull Conners of the world.

Both Malcolm and MLK were needed, they were yin and yang. MLK WAS radical when you consider the social and political climate at the time, he just had a different philosophy than Malcolm. MLK also believed in reparations.

Malcom X said a lot more than just that, and he advocated a lot more than just wanting equal protection and equal respect. MLK opposed violence, for reasons shared in that link I pasted. Why don't you refute his arguments if you really think blacks needed violent protests in order to receive equal rights?
---

alts are pretty talkative. more post than karma by far, lol.
---

In any case, it's worth noting that certain shitposters in this topic literally have fantasies of black people committing open violence against white people. That's why they're so insistent on why Malcom X and radicalism are necessary for change. It has no basis in reality, as it is based entirely on some sick and twisted fantasies of some power struggle against some white bogeyman.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

Transcendentia posted...

social change doesn't come from radical people at all. there was nothing really radical about what MLK did, and yet he effected tremendous change.

the lunatics who think that radicalism are necessary for change are just hungry for violence and conflict. that's all there is to it. it's no different than what ISIS and other terrorist organizations say before they get forcibly shut down.

It's not radical to demand equal protection under the law or to be respected as human beings, OR to not stand idly by when it comes to abuse from law enforcement from the Bull Conners of the world.

Both Malcolm and MLK were needed, they were yin and yang. MLK WAS radical when you consider the social and political climate at the time, he just had a different philosophy than Malcolm. MLK also believed in reparations.

you're probably better off not responding to that account - it's a proudclad alt
---

boxington posted...

I mean, if white Americans didn't believe that black people rioting was a real possibility if the peaceful path didn't work, then it would have been harder to "sell" MLK's vision.

White America did not get on board with civil rights out of fear, they got on board because it increasingly became obvious that the only thing justifying the segregation was bigotry.

Before the 20th century, you had people who genuinely believed that the African race was inferior -- not because they were racist or hateful, but because they had been raised to believe this similar to how we currently view animals as inferior to humans. What undid that view were the achievements and accomplishments that black people made that showed they were equal, not threats of violence.
---

it's actually impressive how much cognitive dissonance and ignorance averagejoel has managed to cram into a single human brain
---

The Admiral posted...

put enough pressure on political leaders that they had to work with MLK on the Civil Rights Bill whether they really wanted to or not.

In reality, many political leaders had been on board for quite a while, north and south, but politics got in the way.

George Wallace's mentor (and a previous governor of Alabama) advocated desegregation as early as the 1930s-1940s, however unsuccessfully.

Wallace himself ran on a much more moderate and colorblind platform in his earlier Alabama political campaigns - but lost since it was unpopular with the large swaths of ignorant racist voters, leading him to unfortunately embrace racist politics for political gain (to the detriment of his legacy).

Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona chapter of NAACP, and supported the 1957 Civil Rights Act, but took objection to a couple sections of the 1964 Civil Rights act which he felt gave the federal government too much reach, which unfortunately absolutely destroyed his presidential prospects.

The rest of the Republican portion of congress voted almost universally in favor of the '64 CRA (as well as the assorted previous Civil Rights Acts they had introduced), while the Democrats/Dixiecrats created biggest roadblock, as they always had done. LBJ sabotaged many civil rights attempts in his years as a congressman, before finally "embracing" civil rights as president once legislation landed on his desk in order to secure his re-election.
---

Transcendentia posted...

In any case, it's worth noting that certain shitposters in this topic literally have fantasies of black people committing open violence against white people. That's why they're so insistent on why Malcom X and radicalism are necessary for change. It has no basis in reality, as it is based entirely on some sick and twisted fantasies of some power struggle against some white bogeyman.

Wait, who said that in this topic?
---

averagejoel posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

Transcendentia posted...

social change doesn't come from radical people at all. there was nothing really radical about what MLK did, and yet he effected tremendous change.

the lunatics who think that radicalism are necessary for change are just hungry for violence and conflict. that's all there is to it. it's no different than what ISIS and other terrorist organizations say before they get forcibly shut down.

It's not radical to demand equal protection under the law or to be respected as human beings, OR to not stand idly by when it comes to abuse from law enforcement from the Bull Conners of the world.

Both Malcolm and MLK were needed, they were yin and yang. MLK WAS radical when you consider the social and political climate at the time, he just had a different philosophy than Malcolm. MLK also believed in reparations.

you're probably better off not responding to that account - it's a proudclad alt

I got hoodwinked, furk.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

Transcendentia posted...

In any case, it's worth noting that certain shitposters in this topic literally have fantasies of black people committing open violence against white people. That's why they're so insistent on why Malcom X and radicalism are necessary for change. It has no basis in reality, as it is based entirely on some sick and twisted fantasies of some power struggle against some white bogeyman.

Wait, who said that in this topic?

he didn't outright say it but he hinted at it in this topic and in other topics
---

Taharqa_ posted...

Transcendentia posted...

In any case, it's worth noting that certain shitposters in this topic literally have fantasies of black people committing open violence against white people. That's why they're so insistent on why Malcom X and radicalism are necessary for change. It has no basis in reality, as it is based entirely on some sick and twisted fantasies of some power struggle against some white bogeyman.

Wait, who said that in this topic?

he did. when he originally said it, lolololol
---

imagine thinking that black supremacy is not only a real thing, but equivalent to white supremacy
---

averagejoel posted...

imagine thinking that black supremacy is not only a real thing, but equivalent to white supremacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy

"Black supremacy or black supremacism is a racial supremacist belief that black people are superior to people of other races."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

"White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races."
---

averagejoel posted...

imagine thinking that black supremacy is not only a real thing, but equivalent to white supremacy

I honestly think joel is a joke account, and an incredibly effective one. His posts make sense if you just view him as a more subtle version of metarlo.
---

The Admiral posted...

averagejoel posted...

imagine thinking that black supremacy is not only a real thing, but equivalent to white supremacy

I honestly think joel is a joke account, just an incredibly effective one. His posts make sense if you just view him as a more subtle metarlo.

That would actually make a tremendous amount of sense. His arguments regarding communism were absolute horse shit.
---

idk, I disagree about MX not being effective when it came to affecting the perception of the country towards civil rights passing.

the media helped perpetrate the whole peaceful protest thing, but MX was a charismatic speaker, that made compelling rhetoric about why black people should defend themselves, separate, etc. I say that because anyone regardless of their color could imagine the best way to protect their people constantly under threat.

and I feel that it also helped "guilt" a lot of people, because the very system that these men were eliciting to change was what shaped someone like MX.
---

Self preservation has always been promoted and celebrated in America. Double standards have also always been present.

People like King eventually become more like X as the waves of hate erode their souls.

America's founding fathers were so desperate for the right to live free from persecution, they committed treason.
---

Malcom X was a black supremacist. Upholding him as a beacon of self preservation is no different than the alt right praising Richard Spencer, for fuck's sake.
---

Because Malcolm was a very radical preacher who probably alienated sympathetic whites to their cause at the time.

If he wasnt killed after his reformation and was able to continue to work after leaving the NOI he'd probably be remembered in a better light today.

He's one of my idols and even great leaders like MLK looked up to him and praised him. However, its not hard to see why he's not revered as MLK though.
---

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X was a black supremacist. Upholding him as a beacon of self preservation is no different than the alt right praising Richard Spencer, for fuck's sake.

I don't see how the two are similar
---

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X was a black supremacist. Upholding him as a beacon of self preservation is no different than the alt right praising Richard Spencer, for fuck's sake.

I don't see how the two are similar

They're both nationalists for their own respective race, with a claimed interest in self preservation of their race all while supporting and endorsing subtle calls to violence and force. They both hate people who are not their race.

If you stripped away the names from things Richard Spencer and Malcom X said, you'd see that it's all essentially the same thing. Except replace black with white and white with black.
---

there circumstances were vastly different, though.
---

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.
---

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X was a black supremacist. Upholding him as a beacon of self preservation is no different than the alt right praising Richard Spencer, for fuck's sake.

I don't see how the two are similar

They're both nationalists for their own respective race, with a claimed interest in self preservation of their race all while supporting and endorsing subtle calls to violence and force. They both hate people who are not their race.

If you stripped away the names from things Richard Spencer and Malcom X said, you'd see that it's all essentially the same thing. Except replace black with white and white with black.

Malcolm X was very different from Richard Spencer. Malcolm grew up in a time when blacks were treated as less than human and had a justification, albeit wrong, for his beliefs. He fought for equal rights for blacks and felt that we as blacks should fight back with the same force that whites were attacking us with. Malcolm eventually went to Mecca and realized he was wrong and that whites weren't the enemy and we should fight for equal rights as brothers. He was actually murdered for his beliefs on that.

Richard Spencer is a man who thinks that whites own america and basically is leading a group who feels that minorities are inferior to white people. Has shown no remorse for his actions.

I dont agree with Malcolm X's early views but he was a much greater man than Richard Spencer could ever be
---

The Admiral posted...

ut then he undermined that using the same logic as groups like Antifa, by claiming that black people were under a perpetual state of oppression from whites

They were and still are.
---

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X was a black supremacist. Upholding him as a beacon of self preservation is no different than the alt right praising Richard Spencer, for fuck's sake.

I don't see how the two are similar

They're both nationalists for their own respective race, with a claimed interest in self preservation of their race all while supporting and endorsing subtle calls to violence and force. They both hate people who are not their race.

If you stripped away the names from things Richard Spencer and Malcom X said, you'd see that it's all essentially the same thing. Except replace black with white and white with black.

Malcolm X was very different from Richard Spencer. Malcolm grew up in a time when blacks were treated as less than human and had a justification, albeit wrong, for his beliefs. He fought for equal rights for blacks and felt that we as blacks should fight back with the same force that whites were attacking us with. Malcolm eventually went to Mecca and realized he was wrong and that whites weren't the enemy and we should fight for equal rights as brothers. He was actually murdered for his beliefs on that.

Richard Spencer is a man who thinks that whites own america and basically is leading a group who feels that minorities are inferior to white people. Has shown no remorse for his actions.

I dont agree with Malcolm X's early views but he was a much greater man than Richard Spencer could ever be

Malcom X having a brief moment of regret before he died doesn't change all the hatred and rhetoric he pumped out into the community. His legacy is one of hatred and racism. Just like Richard Spencer's legacy.

Richard Spencer and his followers would argue that they were born in similar circumstances. They all make the mistake of taking the actions of some and generalizing the entire race because of them.

In other words, it's much harder to find examples of how they're different than how they're the same.
---

Transcendentia posted...

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.

how is it a cop-out, when one way from an era, where he saw, what he considered to be, his people being killed, brutalized, etc., with little justice, and the other belongs to a group that has been a literal and political majority for who knows how long?
---

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.

how is it a cop-out, when one way from an era, where he saw, what he considered to be, his people being killed, brutalized, etc., with little justice, and the other belongs to a group that has been a literal and political majority for who knows how long?

And Richard Spencer sees what he considers to be all manners of offenses and violence against whites. Both individuals twisted the shit out of things in order to justify their hatred of other races. They didn't develop that hatred by seeing injustices - they try to use perceived injustices in order to justify the hatred they already held to begin with.

I mean, Malcom X believed that whites are failed experiments and inferior to blacks, right? It's literally along the same lines of what Richard Spencer believes about black people.
---

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X having a brief moment of regret before he died doesn't change all the hatred and rhetoric he pumped out into the community. His legacy is one of hatred and racism. Just like Richard Spencer's legacy.

Richard Spencer and his followers would argue that they were born in similar circumstances. They all make the mistake of taking the actions of some and generalizing the entire race because of them.

In other words, it's much harder to find examples of how they're different than how they're the same.

Malcolm X watched his friends and family beaten and brutalized and murdered by white people and still had the intelligence and humbleness to admit he had been wrong his whole life.

Richard Spencer is leading a group of people who claim that the US is theirs and is becoming too "PC" because they cant be openly racist anymore.

To say they are the same is laughable
---