Malcolm X is overrated

[Donmega]

That argument being that retaliatory violence by a minority is imprudent, and it is poor leadership to advocate an approach that does not advance the ends of those of whom you lead.

Well as Malcolm himself pointed out, MLK would often cite Ghandi and India in his talks of Non Violence. However, in India you had a majority (Indians) using non violence against a majority (British). Malcolm felt that it was foolish to apply that model to the US where the situation was the exact opposite.

And, if you extrapolate further, you will realize that a British minority was successfully using violence to control the Indian majority.

 

[d fresh]

After dissecting the argument on an unbiased level, I came to the conclusion that this topic is bullshit

To call anyone the greatest is an opinion, therefore, backing it up with opinions doesnt prove any argument. Its call double talk. Watch Fox News to see it in action.

Malcolm was a great bringer of knowledge, yet he was on his quest to find himself also before his life was ended short.

Elijah teachings brought him to a path of righteousness and as a man, Malcolm absorbed that knowledge and went out on his own to receive his own understanding of how life is instead of how it appears to be.

You cant question his greatness because he inspired intense positivity and empowerment in many blacks.

It is what it is. Let it be.

 

[HighTech]

You and I have a disconnect. By that I mean that intellectually you and I are at different stages of life. I suspect it has to do with our ages. I don’t presume that I'm more intellectual than you, nor do I presume that you are more intellectual than I.

I'm skeptical of our ability to expend the energy necessary to relate to one another. I foresaw that when I read your thread that compelled me to make this one. Ultimately I knew that we were going to end up agreeing to disagree. Honestly, that's the only reason why I ignored you, until now.

I know that Malcolm X did not only preach violence. But he did preach violence. "To be non-violent in the face of violence is a crime," is a notable Malcolm X quote. Unfortunately, violence is what Malcolm is most known for.

As I've already said, the plausibility of organized violence by Black people back then was untenable. It was untenable because we were a fragmented minority, who had neither the military arms, or support from other nations, to successfully use violence as a means of achieving any end.

To elaborate, had violence by Blacks upon white America became serious, America--which was one of two Superpowers at that time, could have invoked its military to annihilate Black America, and no other country Earth would have stopped it.

Think about that for just one moment. The Cold War was at one of its highest peaks during that time. Do you think that the Soviet Union--the only other Superpower then, would risk Nuclear War and the extinction of its population over the plight of Black Americans?

So what would violence as advocated by Malcolm X, and the segment of Black America he represented, have achieved? America's government would have decimated Blacks and locked-up those remaining into concentration camps. Why risk this before utilizing all other means of organized resistance?

We only comprised 13% of the population. Why, then, should we alienate ourselves from those white Americans who agreed that we were human; and, as such, deserved rights equal to those of the majority? In this thread people said that Malcolm was a good leader.

On a fundamental level, doesn't good leadership require utilizing every means necessary to achieve the goals of those whom you lead? Before Malcolm converted to true Islam he didn't utilize the white people who altruistically felt that Black people deserved equal rights. Yet, people claim he was a good leader during the time frame in which he didn’t utilize the white people who altruistically supported him.

I believe that it was only after Malcolm converted to true Islam he realized this, and became a great leader. Once he converted to true Islam he realized that the struggle for Black equality in America fell upon every American's shoulders. In his autobiography he mentions a white college girl who sincerely wanted to join the struggle for Black equality. He initially said she couldn't help. But once he apostatized, he basically said he regretted that he didn't enlist her aid.

I agree that Malcolm X did not only preach violence. But my point is that violence was his appeal. As a Black man who advoacated violence, he was novel; and thus, known for openly preaching violence in response to violence by white America. But I don't applaud him for that because, as I've tried to show, violence by Black Americans against white Americans during that point in history was untenable. Malcolm X did acquire the Truth--which in and of itself has mass appeal, once he converted to True Islam. Yet, after he converted to true Islam he died before he could spread it.

So why did you type all that when what your basically saying is ''We as Black people in amerikkka should accept we'll forever be the white mans bitch, he can abuse us whenever he likes without no fear of repercussions because we're a minority''.

Still, name me someone in amerikkka's foul and bloody history who's been greater for Black people than Malcolm X????

 

[cosmologics]

Pick up a book. No disrespect to anyone on your list below. Malcolm X stood on the front line facing the Tsunami of racism with every breath he took for you. Don't take a snapshot or soundbite and try to define him. Look who he became. Look at his evolution. That's like look at man today and saying he aint shit because he was once a caveman.

Fuck just putting these boxes around Malcolm. It's my opinion that he is one of the most signigicant people of the 20th century. If not human history. Anyone one reguardless of race that makes an impact on humanity, that elevates the consciousness of the masses, and redefines thought is no different than a christ or buddha.

You're entitled to your opinion though. No matter how much I vehimently oppose it. bell hooks.... come on... go play somewhere....

I wholly agree with that statement. No arguments here. My only reply is that I don't believe that Malcolm X deserves more praise than the Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Angela Davis, bell hooks, W.E.B. Dubois, etc. He apostatized. Yet, people credit him most for his views before he did.

 

[Sub0]

Black Americans would have accomplished nothing by trying to counter white racism with violence during the days of Malcolm X.

I think this is where you need to refine your argument.

Racism is based on a power differential that exists between people.

Aggressive self-defense was/is advocated to neutralize the terrorism (let's call it what it was and is) on the part of europeans against Blacks.

At times, aggressive self-defense is use proactively to neutralize an enemy.

This has been used throughout history--size of a minority/majority group notwithstanding.

Malcolm, the Panthers, Robert F. Williams, and others weren't advocating blind, irrational violence. They used violence, as you put it, as a tactic to ward off the terrorism inflicted on the Black community at large.

To fight RACISM as a whole, they explored and employed various tactics.

This is where we have to make the distinction between people from the Civil Rights and Black Power/Liberation movements.

One camp embraced a tactic (nonviolence) as both a philosophy/ideology AND a tactic to achieve desired ends.

The other camp embraced a philosophy (liberation) and used various tactics (nonviolence, self-defense, etc.) to achieve desired ends.

 

[B ILLA]

you're joking right

 

[MikeD95]

I think this is where you need to refine your argument.

Racism is based on a power differential that exists between people.

Aggressive self-defense was/is advocated to neutralize the terrorism (let's call it what it was and is) on the part of europeans against Blacks.

At times, aggressive self-defense is use proactively to neutralize an enemy.

This has been used throughout history--size of a minority/majority group notwithstanding.

Malcolm, the Panthers, Robert F. Williams, and others weren't advocating blind, irrational violence. They used violence, as you put it, as a tactic to ward off the terrorism inflicted on the Black community at large.

To fight RACISM as a whole, they explored and employed various tactics.

This is where we have to make the distinction between people from the Civil Rights and Black Power/Liberation movements.

One camp embraced a tactic (nonviolence) as both a philosophy/ideology AND a tactic to achieve desired ends.

The other camp embraced a philosophy (liberation) and used various tactics (nonviolence, self-defense, etc.) to achieve desired ends.

Cosign.....but I think it's more important to realize as prior posters have pointed out that "more aggressive" forms of social change acted to serve as a counterpoint to the non-violent movements at that time. This is the crux that I believe Mr. Camus is missing. Without the threat of violence the civil rights movement would not have been as successful as it was. If he had any knowledge about Malcolm in particular he was understand interior to the persona he was a very reserved and polite person and I doubt very highly he wanted a race war with white folks despite having the moxie to address it and even to tease around the possibility. The reason I feel he did this was (primarily but not exclusively toward his own community) 1) to provide shock and awe 2) to wake people up about the seriousness of the crimes and 3) to evoke real change. It might have been okay with Macolm before/after the NOI if the U.S. were to establish some type of seperate state but barring that extremely long shot I think the TRUE goal was to at least get black nationalist ideas on the table of genuine social strategy and sort of wedge a crumb of respect out of white people that we didn't have at the time. He did that without regard to his safety and comfort and that alone makes him a great man regardless of anyone's opinions.

BTW, Mr. Camus, you seem to try to lean heavily toward a stingent logical process when its obvious even to the laymen that your entire argument is based on your feelings. While you are in your handbook look up these fallacies and make sure you avoid them in your comments:

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum)
Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi)
Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy)

Speaking of which, you speculate that 5-10% of a population would not have been able to mount a successful revolution.......which I assume was a very safe and defeatist outlook held by many at that time as well. The point is this type revolt would likely have been viral and ongoing and not something that the almighty military could have stomped out quickly and without a substantial amount of loss of life, property and stability to the country (footnote: Vietnam/Iraq). These type of options gave the powers that be enough incentive to examine alternatives that included bringing "respectable" leaders (i.e. MLK) to the table of discourse.

 

[Black A. Camus]

Pick up a book. No disrespect to anyone on your list below. Malcolm X stood on the front line facing the Tsunami of racism with every breath he took for you. Don't take a snapshot or soundbite and try to define him. Look who he became. Look at his evolution. That's like look at man today and saying he aint shit because he was once a caveman.

Fuck just putting these boxes around Malcolm. It's my opinion that he is one of the most signigicant people of the 20th century. If not human history. Anyone one reguardless of race that makes an impact on humanity, that elevates the consciousness of the masses, and redefines thought is no different than a christ or buddha.

You're entitled to your opinion though. No matter how much I vehimently oppose it. bell hooks.... come on... go play somewhere....

bell hooks really deserves a separate thread. Without digressing too much, I'll to express why I feel that she is among the greatest Black leaders.

bell hooks is an essential voice on racism. She is in the same vein as Malcolm when it comes to understanding it, except she is more pragmatic. She may not be a leader in the sense that she leads a huge organization: Rather, she is a leader in the sense that she is one of the preeminent American intellectuals today, who influences through her writings, and in the classes she teaches as a college professor.

Malcolm is great because he made white America realize Black rage. A definition of Black rage is 'the psychological displacement of grief and pain into rage' hooks, killing rage... page 27. He was the voice that made America realize that some Blacks were angry enough about social injustice to become violent in the face of the violence perpetuated on them. Black rage exists and it can be invaluable tool to affect social change, if utilized to achieve an end. In my opinion, by advocating retaliatory violence, Malcolm used Black rage imprudently.

bell hooks understands and uses Black rage better than any other intellectual alive today.
Like Malcolm, she argues that racial hatred is real, and that it is humanizing to resist it with militant rage. After experiencing a racist taxi driver who didn’t want to take her to the airport, and after having similar experiences with racist airline stewards, in Killing Rage she wrote



I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder…I felt a “killing rage.” I wanted to stab him softly, to shoot him with the gun I wished I had in my purse. And as I watched his pain, I would say to him tenderly “racism hurts.” (pages 8-11).



Thus, like Malcolm bell hooks recognizes Black rage. Unlike him, however, she resists the pathological behavior it can incite--such as trying to persuade Blacks in America, a fragmented minority, without military means, to counter racism with violence. Instead bell hooks advocates using Black rage constructively--i.e., as a power to affect social change. All this is why bell hooks is one of among great Black leaders.

Since you suggested that I read a book, I suggest that you read something written by bell hooks other than Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, assuming you even read that (and I don't).

 

[Sub0]

He was the voice that made America realize that some Blacks were angry enough about social injustice to become violent in the face of the violence perpetuated on them.

He wasn't the first to advocate aggressive self-defense in response to the TERRORISM to which Blacks were subjected. Many others advocated and actually employed the tactic in an attempt to counter the TERRORISM they faced. Read up on Robert F. Williams and his work with the Black Armed Guard in Monroe, North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

Read about the Deacons for Defense and their work in Louisiana.

picture from the movie​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

to counter racism with violence.

To counter TERRORISM with aggressive self-defense.

 

[Sub0]

He was the voice that made America realize that some Blacks were angry enough about social injustice to become violent in the face of the violence perpetuated on them.

He wasn't the first to advocate aggressive self-defense in response to the TERRORISM to which Blacks were subjected. And he will not be the last. Many others advocated and actually employed the tactic in an attempt to counter the TERRORISM they faced. Read up on Robert F. Williams and his work with the Black Armed Guard in Monroe, North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

Read about the Deacons for Defense and their work in Louisiana.

picture from the movie​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

to counter racism with violence.

To counter TERRORISM with aggressive self-defense.

 

[TheBlack Dingam]

A lot of people tend to overrate Malcolm X. In a thread about his Birthday, someone called him the greatest Black American ever. However, he died before he had a chance to be great. Moreover, he died before he could undo all of the harm that he did to Black America. He harmed scores of Black Americans by converting them to a false religion. Moreover, he harmed Black Americans by advocating retaliatory violence against whites.

The Nation of Islam (N.O.I.) is a false religion. Any religion that advocates hatred, even if it’s hate against prejudiced white people, is a false religion. Malcolm X realized and admitted this when he converted to true Islam, after his journey to the Middle East. Malcolm X died before he could spread the truth to all the souls he tainted with false religion.

Most Black Americans revere Malcolm X because of the revolutionary message he spread while he was a member of the Nation of Islam. He spread his message of retaliatory violence during America’s shameful and pitiful Jim Crow era. It is laudably significant that Malcolm X was a figurehead of a segment of Black Americans who organized for the purpose of violently resisting the violence perpetuated on them. It is significant, but at the same time such violence is tactically imprudent.

It’s tactically imprudent for a minority to advocate violence until it exhausts all other means of resistance, unless the minority receives military foreign aide. Whenever Black people talk about revolution it is important to realize that we have never comprised more than 13% of America’s population (look at census reports). Within that 13% maybe 3, or 4, percent supported the Nation of Islam’s retaliatory violence approach. Moreover, Black people are non-indigenous Americans in the sense that we are not white, and cannot covertly blend into America’s populace. Hence, had Black retaliatory violence become a problem in America, its government would undoubtedly have rounded Blacks up into camps, just like it did to Japanese Americans during WWII. All of this is why retaliatory violence by Black Americans is imprudent.

Whether or not he would have agreed with this rationale against retaliatory violence, he did not advocate once he converted to True Islam. Had he had the chance to thoroughly spread the truth once he made this reformation, I believe that he would have been one of the greatest, not only Black Americans, but one of the greatest Americans period. Unfortunately, he died before he could achieve true greatness. That’s why I believe he’s overrated.

Please die.

 

[water]

bell hooks really deserves a separate thread. Without digressing too much, I'll to express why I feel that she is among the greatest Black leaders.

bell hooks is an essential voice on racism. She is in the same vein as Malcolm when it comes to understanding it, except she is more pragmatic. She may not be a leader in the sense that she leads a huge organization: Rather, she is a leader in the sense that she is one of the preeminent American intellectuals today, who influences through her writings, and in the classes she teaches as a college professor.

Malcolm is great because he made white America realize Black rage. A definition of Black rage is 'the psychological displacement of grief and pain into rage' hooks, killing rage... page 27. He was the voice that made America realize that some Blacks were angry enough about social injustice to become violent in the face of the violence perpetuated on them. Black rage exists and it can be invaluable tool to affect social change, if utilized to achieve an end. In my opinion, by advocating retaliatory violence, Malcolm used Black rage imprudently.

bell hooks understands and uses Black rage better than any other intellectual alive today.
Like Malcolm, she argues that racial hatred is real, and that it is humanizing to resist it with militant rage. After experiencing a racist taxi driver who didn’t want to take her to the airport, and after having similar experiences with racist airline stewards, in Killing Rage she wrote



I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder…I felt a “killing rage.” I wanted to stab him softly, to shoot him with the gun I wished I had in my purse. And as I watched his pain, I would say to him tenderly “racism hurts.” (pages 8-11).



Thus, like Malcolm bell hooks recognizes Black rage. Unlike him, however, she resists the pathological behavior it can incite--such as trying to persuade Blacks in America, a fragmented minority, without military means, to counter racism with violence. Instead bell hooks advocates using Black rage constructively--i.e., as a power to affect social change. All this is why bell hooks is one of among great Black leaders.

Since you suggested that I read a book, I suggest that you read something written by bell hooks other than Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, assuming you even read that (and I don't).

In my opinion, by advocating retaliatory violence, Malcolm used Black rage imprudently.



So................ why are we in Iraq???? Didn't hear you the first time.......


"Black" camus telling us who we should like and who we should consider great.......... so god complex of you


American society is based on retaliatory violence by the white man. Only he is justified to use it.

Fuck that.

ONE RULE FOR EVERYONE !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[56k]

Well written, but you are obviously ill informed sit down and read Malcolm's biography before you come to any conclusions.

 

[Black A. Camus]

In my opinion, by advocating retaliatory violence, Malcolm used Black rage imprudently.



So................ why are we in Iraq???? Didn't hear you the first time.......


"Black" camus telling us who we should like and who we should consider great.......... so god complex of you


American society is based on retaliatory violence by the white man. Only he is justified to use it.

Fuck that.

ONE RULE FOR EVERYONE !!!!!!!!!!!

If you were a general, and your military was less than one-fifth the size of your enemy's military would you advocate war? Would you advocate war if you knew your enemy's military had sophisticated weapons, such as tanks, field artillery, gunship helicopters, a Navy and an Air Force? Things that your military does not have, and cannot counter nor defend against?

Additionally, war with your numerically, and technologically, superior enemy would have to be fought on his soil where your military is non-indigenous. Gorilla war would be out of the question: Since members of your military are Black while your enemies’ population is white, your military units could not perform hit and run raids, and then covertly blend into the population. They would be too easily identifiable. Given all of this, if you were a general would you advocate war before your Political leaders had tried all other means of resolving the conflict?

Had Blacks accepted Malcolm's retaliatory violence approach those are the odds we'd be against. It simply would have been an unwinnable war. Had our grandparents, and parents, become too threatening, back then, the U.S. military would have slaughtered them. They would have died for nothing because they would not have accomplished anything except exacerbating an already hostile situation. Malcolm X was a great political leader, but he would have been a very poor general.

 

[water]

If you were a general, and your military was less than one-fifth the size of your enemy's military would you advocate war? Would you advocate war if you knew your enemy's military had sophisticated weapons, such as tanks, field artillery, gunship helicopters, a Navy and an Air Force? Things that your military does not have, and cannot counter nor defend against?

Additionally, war with your numerically, and technologically, superior enemy would have to be fought on his soil where your military is non-indigenous. Gorilla war would be out of the question: Since members of your military are Black while your enemies’ population is white, your military units could not perform hit and run raids, and then covertly blend into the population. They would be too easily identifiable. Given all of this, if you were a general would you advocate war before your Political leaders had tried all other means of resolving the conflict?

Had Blacks accepted Malcolm's retaliatory violence approach those are the odds we'd be against. It simply would have been an unwinnable war. Had our grandparents, and parents, become too threatening, back then, the U.S. military would have slaughtered them. They would have died for nothing because they would not have accomplished anything except exacerbating an already hostile situation. Malcolm X was a great political leader, but he would have been a very poor general.

Please see "Haitian Revolution"


Malcolm X knew you would bring up that shit too........


[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/0deA1ZXVzwo[/FLASH]


Malcolm X "The Ballot Or The Bullet"

Here are some excerpts:


[3] Although I'm still a Muslim, I'm not here tonight to discuss my religion. I'm not here to try and change your religion. I'm not here to argue or discuss anything that we differ about, because it's time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem, a common problem, a problem that will make you catch hell whether you're a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Muslim, or a nationalist. Whether you're educated or illiterate, whether you live on the boulevard or in the alley, you're going to catch hell just like I am. We're all in the same boat and we all are going to catch the same hell from the same man. He just happens to be a white man. All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at the hands of the white man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social degradation at the hands of the white man.

[4] Now in speaking like this, it doesn't mean that we're anti-white, but it does mean we're anti-exploitation, we're anti-degradation, we're anti-oppression. And if the white man doesn't want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us.

The year when all of the white political crooks will be right back in your and my community with their false promises, building up our hopes for a letdown, with their trickery and their treachery, with their false promises which they don't intend to keep

If you and I were Americans, there'd be no problem. Those Hunkies that just got off the boat, they're already Americans; Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans. Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American. And as long as you and I have been over here, we aren't Americans yet.

8] Well, I am one who doesn't believe in deluding myself. I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American. Why, if birth made you American, you wouldn't need any legislation, you wouldn't need any amendments to the Constitution, you wouldn't be faced with civil-rights filibustering in Washington, D.C., right now. They don't have to pass civil-rights legislation to make a Polack an American.

They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to knock out the Democrats for the Republicans, we'll get to them in a minute. But it is true -- you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.

[23] How can you thank a man for giving you what's already yours? How then can you thank him for giving you only part of what's already yours? You haven't even made progress, if what's being given to you, you should have had already. That's not progress.

[38] So, you're dealing with a man whose bias and prejudice are making him lose his mind, his intelligence, every day. He's frightened. He looks around and sees what's taking place on this earth, and he sees that the pendulum of time is swinging in your direction. The dark people are waking up. They're losing their fear of the white man. No place where he's fighting right now is he winning. Everywhere he's fighting, he's fighting someone your and my complexion. And they're beating him. He can't win any more. He's won his last battle. He failed to win the Korean War. He couldn't win it. He had to sign a truce. That's a loss. Any time Uncle Sam, with all his machinery for warfare, is held to a draw by some rice eaters, he's lost the battle. He had to sign a truce. America's not supposed to sign a truce. She's supposed to be bad. But she's not bad any more. She's bad as long as she can use her hydrogen bomb, but she can't use hers for fear Russia might use hers. Russia can't use hers, for fear that Sam might use his. So, both of them are weapon less. They can't use the weapon because each's weapon nullifies the other's. So the only place where action can take place is on the ground. And the white man can't win another war fighting on the ground. Those days are over The black man knows it, the brown man knows it, the red man knows it, and the yellow man knows it. So they en gage him in guerrilla warfare. That's not his style. You've got to have heart to be a guerrilla warrior, and he hasn't got any heart. I'm telling you now.


42] The political philosophy of black nationalism means that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community; no more. The black man in the black community has to be re-educated into the science of politics so he will know what politics is supposed to bring him in return. Don't be throwing out any ballots. A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

[43] The economic philosophy of black nationalism is pure and simple. It only means that we should control the economy of our community. Why should white people be running all the stores in our community? Why should white people be running the banks of our community? Why should the economy of our community be in the hands of the white man? Why? If a black man can't move his store into a white community, you tell me why a white man should move his store into a black community. The philosophy of black nationalism involves a re-education program in the black community in regards to economics. Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don't live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer. Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere. He's got us in a vise.

[44] So the economic philosophy of black nationalism means in every church, in every civic organization, in every fraternal order, it's time now for our people to be come conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we're developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind. Once you gain control of the economy of your own community, then you don't have to picket and boycott and beg some cracker downtown for a job in his business.
[45] The social philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to get together and remove the evils, the vices, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other evils that are destroying the moral fiber of our community. We our selves have to lift the level of our community, the standard of our community to a higher level, make our own society beautiful so that we will be satisfied in our own social circles and won't be running around here trying to knock our way into a social circle where we're not wanted.

[46] So I say, in spreading a gospel such as black nationalism, it is not designed to make the black man re-evaluate the white man -- you know him already -- but to make the black man re-evaluate himself. Don't change the white man's mind -- you can't change his mind, and that whole thing about appealing to the moral conscience of America -- America's conscience is bankrupt. She lost all conscience a long time ago. Uncle Sam has no conscience. They don't know what morals are. They don't try and eliminate an evil because it's evil, or because it's illegal, or because it's immoral; they eliminate it only when it threatens their existence. So you're wasting your time appealing to the moral conscience of a bankrupt man like Uncle Sam. If he had a conscience, he'd straighten this thing out with no more pressure being put upon him. So it is not necessary to change the white man's mind. We have to change our own mind. You can't change his mind about us. We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth so we can develop unity and harmony that's necessary to get this problem solved our selves. How can we do this? How can we avoid jealousy? How can we avoid the suspicion and the divisions that exist in the community? I'll tell you how.




So in the words of Malcolm, I only have to tell you one thing.......


"So it is not necessary to change [your] the white man's mind."




"And the white man can't win another war fighting on the ground. Those days are over The black man knows it, the brown man knows it, the red man knows it, and the yellow man knows it. So they engage him in guerrilla warfare. That's not his style. You've got to have heart to be a guerrilla warrior, and he hasn't got any heart."



Damn, he called it..................

 

[Cruise]

Had Blacks accepted Malcolm's retaliatory violence approach those are the odds we'd be against. It simply would have been an unwinnable war. Had our grandparents, and parents, become too threatening, back then, the U.S. military would have slaughtered them. They would have died for nothing because they would not have accomplished anything except exacerbating an already hostile situation. Malcolm X was a great political leader, but he would have been a very poor general.

History is littered with examples of outmanned, outgunned, and supposedly overmatched armies winning.

Look at Babylon beating the combined armies of Egypt and Ethiopia (they were outnumbered 10-1).
Alexander beat the Persians (outnumbered 10-1).
Rome beat the French (30,000 Gauls to 1,000 Romans).
Britain beat the French (Britain had no heavy cavalry and wiped out a force 10 times its size on French soil!).
Britain beat the Spanish (ever heard of the Spanish Armada?)
U. S. beat Britain (someone mentioned this earlier).
Zulus beat Britain (it was only a battle but they had no guns!)
Japanese beat China (how do you subjugate China? Japan did it!)
Vietnam beat U. S. (how in the world did they beat the US?)
Al Qaeda beat U. S. (these guys number in maybe the 100s).

In fact, the only reason honkies changed their tune is because of all the violence which occurred during the 60s. Almost every major city in the US experienced so-called war-like race riots during this time.

I don't see too many honkies calling anyone "boy" after the violence during Malcolm and Martin's day.

So in the words of Malcolm, I only have to tell you one thing.......


"So it is not necessary to change [your] the white man's mind."




"And the white man can't win another war fighting on the ground. Those days are over The black man knows it, the brown man knows it, the red man knows it, and the yellow man knows it. So they engage him in guerrilla warfare. That's not his style. You've got to have heart to be a guerrilla warrior, and he hasn't got any heart."



Damn, he called it..................

It's funny how Malcolm said things 40 years ago I am only just now starting to realize today.

It's like when you get older (living in honkie heaven), you can't help but come to certain conclusions.

Dude was no joke.