5 ms·
Actually, his views were rapidly evolving at the time of his death. Read the whole book.
by dwolfson20 12y ago
Actually, his views were rapidly evolving at the time of his death. Read the whole book.
- oldmanjay 12y agoI do know that, but most of his public output was spent on vitriol that damaged race relations further. hence the part where I felt it was a shame.
- sp332 12y agoI think you should have been more specific then.
- poolpool 12y agoDamaged race relations more than centuries of slavery and systematic discrimination by our country's leaders did?
- tomjen3 12y agoDamage is cumulative. Arguing over who did the most damage is not likely to bring about anything but hatred, resentment and more damage. That is essentially what X did. King offered unity, healing and a better future.
- poolpool 12y agoYou don't politely ask your oppressors to give you the rights they have taken away from you.
- tomjen3 12y agoWhy not? It worked for King, it worked for Ghandi. Do you really think there could have been something like the civil rights laws -- born primarily of white people -- if the primary black person had been X and not King?
- djtriptych 12y agoIt is patently absurd to give MLK's non-violent movement 100% of the credit for civil rights reform. The political situation during that time was unbelievably complex, and the changing attitudes of a turbulent nation cannot be so simply explained.
- enraged_camel 12y ago>>it worked for Ghandi. Yet it was Ghandi himself who, when asked if his peaceful tactics would have worked against Hitler, said, "probably not." I'm not suggesting that white people are literally Hitler, but simply that there's a time and place for everything, including peace and violence. And I say that as someone who has never called for violence on anything ever.
- tomjen3 12y agoThat is true. However the guy I responded to said "you don't" as in a general rule.
- taejo 12y agoPerhaps it worked for King because the alternative to King was X?
- serf 12y agoYou're comparing 1960s America to colonial (and later) America. It's certainly possible that the damage done later on was greater, as there was a greater disbursement of knowledge, media, and information during a time in which the country was known as the land of opportunity, the melting pot. A speech calling for violence in the time of newspapers and television is surely more damaging than that same speech given in an auditorium in the early 1800s to a select group.. I am not attempting to put a 'value' on the whole of slave trade, that's impossible. I'd merely like to point out the 'apples vs. oranges' nature of your comparison.
- pekk 12y agoPeople give such speeches today in mainstream right-wing rallies and are not criticized for it at all, let alone as harshly as Malcolm X is criticized. That's apples to apples since it's still the time of newspapers and television.
- jmaygarden 12y agoDo you have examples of recent "mainstream" right-wing rallies that call for racial violence? That sounds absurd. I'd like to know more about it.
- novacole 12y agoMalcolm x never called for racial violence. Ever.
- jmaygarden 12y agoIn the context of the previous two comments, it was stated that present-day mainstream right-wing speeches call for violence. If so, I must have missed it. I did not intend for my statement to reflect on the actions of Malcolm X.
- tesq 12y agoRace relations would have gone nowhere and would have been co-opted and neutered were it not for people like him.