Shemsi en Tehuti wrote: Is Malik Zulu Shabazz, born as "Paris Lewis", worthy of carrying the name of late great Malcolm X?
I'm conflicted about this brother. I've been aware of him since he was a student/activist at Howard University back in the day. He's NO Malcolm, lets get that straight, off the top(but then who is?), but even judging him on his own merits, I can't call it. He's always come off a bit strident and over the top to me(over the top types are always a little suspect to me). CAn't quite put my finger on it, but it'll come to me one day.Nothing concrete, just my feelings.....
Brother malik shabazz has my vote any brother thats ready to stand up for the rights of our people definetly has my vote ,the brothers telling it like it is man putting that asian journalist in her place politcal whore indeed.
Unfortunately, specifically in the video posted above, nearly every word of the Asian reporter is correct. In both interviews: with the gangster rap apologist and Malik Shabazz.
In America of 2007 in cities such as Washington D.C and Atlanta GA nearly 25% (1 out of every 4) BLACK woman will be sexually assaulted by a BLACK man. I used to work as a volunteer MOAR (Men organized Against Rap) with two African-American female friends who counselors for WOAR (Women organized Against Rape) and one of the most corrosive elements in the African-American community today is the vitrolic misogny dripping out of the mouths of the hip-hop traitors trolling the airwaves.
Just yesterday there was a type of town meeting on Oprah with the black moguls of the hip-hop industry (Russell Simmons, etc) trying to defend the gangstas and ho's and big-butts waving all over the airwaves. These black men, who are millionaires off of the backs of their nefarjious products, blamed everybody but themselves. And they were soundly (all except Common, whose music does not reflect this genre) rejected by the African-Americans (young and old) in the audience.
I heard nothing from the mouth of this Asian woman that I did not hear from African-American mouths yesterdya.
Worst still, is the avoiding of personal accountability by the tired culpability of antique slavery. In Brazil, slavery ended later than in America (1888 - I have met people who are the grandchildren of slaves) and there is grinding poverty that makes our ghettos seem like paradise but you don't see the systematic preying of black men upon black women. To the contrary, it is the poisonous venom of our African-American gangster hip-hop that now enters Brazil and seeks to denigrate women there as they do in the United States.
In Brazil, hip-hop out of the favelas as manifested by such artists as MV Bill is political. They recently united to unanimously pull out of a show when the promotor reneged on a promise to share the profits with the favelas. The urged the American artists to join them but they refused.
In Durham, three of the main persons who de-railed the accusations against the Duke students were BLACK. These black people saw the inconsistencies in the young woman's story. They love their people as well a anyone else. But they felt no need to injustly judge three whites as PROXY for the centuries of injustice heaped upon our people. You would do well to listen to how the Durham, North Carolina African-American community is handling the release of the three students based upon the mountain of evidence that exonerates them and not a bunch of people who do not live there. I have much faith in the combined wisdom of the black community who are searching for solutions to the gut and visceral problems that affect us and are not searching for a cause celebre.
Malik Shabazz is reaching when his accusations against three people in 2007 is based upon historical actions that took place 300, 200, 100 years ago. If he is telling me that, as a lawyer, he would ignore the trail of photos, phone calls and STATEMENT FROM THE GIRL'S GOOD FRIEND (another African-American woman) and still pursue this case then I have to question his credentials as a lawyer or question his personal integrity. If these were three African-Americans and the case was NOT thrown out I would have to go down to North Carolina to protest that injustice.
The District Attorney, Nifong, is currently trying his best not to be dis-barred for his actions. And right now, it appears that he will be.
We should be careful when we, a people who want to build and maintain a RIGHTEOUS movement, are quiet about unrighteous actions against others. What then stops us from being imperialists, besides our lack of economic and military power?
adrianerik wrote: Unfortunately, specifically in the video posted above, nearly every word of the Asian reporter is correct. In both interviews: with the gangster rap apologist and Malik Shabazz.
In America of 2007 in cities such as Washington D.C and Atlanta GA nearly 25% (1 out of every 4) BLACK woman will be sexually assaulted by a BLACK man. I used to work as a volunteer MOAR (Men organized Against Rap) with two African-American female friends who counselors for WOAR (Women organized Against Rape) and one of the most corrosive elements in the African-American community today is the vitrolic misogny dripping out of the mouths of the hip-hop traitors trolling the airwaves.
Just yesterday there was a type of town meeting on Oprah with the black moguls of the hip-hop industry (Russell Simmons, etc) trying to defend the gangstas and ho's and big-butts waving all over the airwaves. These black men, who are millionaires off of the backs of their nefarjious products, blamed everybody but themselves. And they were soundly (all except Common, whose music does not reflect this genre) rejected by the African-Americans (young and old) in the audience.
I heard nothing from the mouth of this Asian woman that I did not hear from African-American mouths yesterdya.
Worst still, is the avoiding of personal accountability by the tired culpability of antique slavery. In Brazil, slavery ended later than in America (1888 - I have met people who are the grandchildren of slaves) and there is grinding poverty that makes our ghettos seem like paradise but you don't see the systematic preying of black men upon black women. To the contrary, it is the poisonous venom of our African-American gangster hip-hop that now enters Brazil and seeks to denigrate women there as they do in the United States.
In Brazil, hip-hop out of the favelas as manifested by such artists as MV Bill is political. They recently united to unanimously pull out of a show when the promotor reneged on a promise to share the profits with the favelas. The urged the American artists to join them but they refused.
In Durham, three of the main persons who de-railed the accusations against the Duke students were BLACK. These black people saw the inconsistencies in the young woman's story. They love their people as well a anyone else. But they felt no need to injustly judge three whites as PROXY for the centuries of injustice heaped upon our people. You would do well to listen to how the Durham, North Carolina African-American community is handling the release of the three students based upon the mountain of evidence that exonerates them and not a bunch of people who do not live there. I have much faith in the combined wisdom of the black community who are searching for solutions to the gut and visceral problems that affect us and are not searching for a cause celebre.
Malik Shabazz is reaching when his accusations against three people in 2007 is based upon historical actions that took place 300, 200, 100 years ago. If he is telling me that, as a lawyer, he would ignore the trail of photos, phone calls and STATEMENT FROM THE GIRL'S GOOD FRIEND (another African-American woman) and still pursue this case then I have to question his credentials as a lawyer or question his personal integrity. If these were three African-Americans and the case was NOT thrown out I would have to go down to North Carolina to protest that injustice.
The District Attorney, Nifong, is currently trying his best not to be dis-barred for his actions. And right now, it appears that he will be.
We should be careful when we, a people who want to build and maintain a RIGHTEOUS movement, are quiet about unrighteous actions against others. What then stops us from being imperialists, besides our lack of economic and military power?
Michelle Malkin is a known Philipino American Uncle Tom/Aunt Nancy and rent a mouth for the conservative Cracker agenda. She and her ilk SPECIALIZE in ingratiating themselves to Crackers by talking sh*t about Black folks and defending white folks, no matter the topic, so what she has to say carries no weight with me. As an African-American woman, I don't need to be lectured to by the likes of her, in reference to anything having to do with Black male/female relations, issues, pathologies. She can kiss my Black ass......
Having said that, in a thread that occured right at the time these accusations were made, I said that if they were false, the accuser should be punished. It's unfortunate that the white men were falsely accused(although.....if the script had have been flipped, and she had been white and they had been Black, we would have not been having this conversation til AFTER they had done a bid in prison, if then, so excuse me if I don't shed tears), but that doesn't concern me as much as the damage this Black chick has done to future LEGITIMATE claims of rape made by sisters, within a society that has NEVER taken OUR sexual abuse/rape SERIOUSLY, or even acknowledged that we COULD be raped. For that alone, she should have her ass whipped.
I watched Oprah's show yesterday, and I thought that some of what Russell and the others had to say was valid. What wasn't elaborated on, and I'm not suprised that it wasn't because of whose show it was and who her main concern/demographic/constituency seems to be, was when Common talked about rap having taken a turn at some point. The turn it took was that it went from a genre almost EXCLUSIVELY listened to and purchased by AFrican Americans to one that is now Overwhelmingly purchased by WHITE PEOPLE. Before white people started being the main CONSUMERS of the music, there was not only VARIETY in it, but much of it was CONSCIOUS AND POSITIVE. It wasn't a billion dollar industry, so it didn't attract ever Tom, Dick and Harpo, who a minute ago were selling drugs and now all of a sudden they want to write rhymes(and who weren't likely to be concerned about selling poison to their own community, no matter the form it comes in), former wanna be pimps, and other assorted rif raff. It attracted people with a REAL artistic/creative bent, because you certainly weren't going to get rich doing it. The minute Crackers became interested in it, the modern day minstrel show mode that many of these rappers are in, went into full effect. Why? Because the stereotypes and imagery panders to the images/views/fantasies that Crackers ALREADY HAD ABOUT Black folks and spent much time and energy promoting about us , through movies/cartoons/t.v, for YEARS, that's why. To the extent that Russell and others like him have PANDERED to that, he should be called out for that,(though he also signed artists who didn't fit that mold) White people, particularly , white males, are what drives that industry, yet that was somehow conveniently left out of the discusssion. I wonder why.....
I prefer to focus on how our personal feelings about 'Toms' 'crackers' etc are manifested in our strategies to alleviate, reduce, eliminate and develop alternatives for the problems that affect our peoples.
One thing about |Malcolm X that you''ll ntice is that when he was interviewed on the various talk and radio shows, many of them with very confrontational hosts, his personal feelings about the hosts never became THE issue. Any public appearance became an opportunity to educate and advance the cause of our people, to inform any blacks or whites who were tuned in.
Being it was on FOX, I'm quite sure that the host represents the views of that station. It appears that Malik Shabazz knew that also. So strategically, why was he there. To say F--- you? As Sonia Sanchez once wrote in one of her poems..."Uh huh...but how does that free US?" Once you go on that show you elevate that show. You establish the legitimacy of the show. If you are on that show to show your contempt for the host (for whatever reason) then prepare to do that. If you are on that show to advance the cause of our people...then be prepared to do that.
Agree with you enemy if he acknowledges a point that you agree with and then co-opt the point by pointing to a strategy that your enemy, if he/she really believes what they are saying, should also agree with.
A bigoted commentator once applauded the Million Man March for its call for Black men to be faithful husbands and providers. Rather than sounding the 'cracker' out as a 'voice for the right wing' the Nation of Islam representative thanked him and remarked how so many of these husbands were ex-cons and how they would apprecitate it this bigot would begin to support the un-equal sentencing and lack of rehabilitation present in the American justice system.
You either expose hypocrisy or your advance your cause.
So I'm questioning the intent of the above post.
Malik Shabazz and his crew errored by judging and convicting and condemning these people in public (something strategically the NAACP Legal Fund has been fighting against for years). He then went on a TV program, hosted by someone opposed to you to defend his error.
The host may be a right-wing racist but the points RAISED on her show were not. And anyone in that same situation should be prepared to separate their personal antipathy towards a person and their committment for a cause.
Instead Malik Shabazz showed himself to be the stereotypical 'negro' showcased in the play NO PLACE TO BE SOMEBODY "Black means being LOUD.....and WRONG".
There is a friend of mine in Philadelphia who has just finished a film called "NO!". It's a documentary about the silence of Black Men concerning rape in the African-American community. It particularly affects me because several friends were in the documentary who were raped and I never knew it. As soon as I find the site I'll recommend the documentary. There is a discussion between Black men in the documentary with this main point for those blaming the lack of respect for black women on slavery. African-American women can't and won't wait for Black men to deal with white men before we stop raping them. (I include myself in the incusive 'we')
In the Oprah show yesterday. the students from Spelman (predominately African-American female university in Atlanta) made a point about accountability.
During the height of the crack crisis we made a big point of blaming the suppliers (the supposed CIA, the Columbians, and other shadowy forces) for allowing drugs into the black community and 'causing us to become addicts". So, except for some yeoman community initiatives, our militants railed against the those who supplied the drugs and not those who used it.
And now, when a crew of black youths (I won't say poor and deprived because many are not such as Tupac) SUPPLY the world with the most depraved lyrics perpetuating the negative images of their people we now demand that the USERS must be held culpable and not the SUPPLIERS.
Both positions assume a weak, helpless, slave-like African-American community with no values or mores or structures to create an environment of accountability and internal fortitude to resist.
So who cares whether whites buy hip-hop or are the major users of cocaine? What type of community are we trying to build? One that fools itself that it is strong because no one attacks us?
I believe that if we get out of this "I AM A WAR-REE-YUR" complex (where we need to use our penlight to find some enemies) and get back to the business of nation-building we can more readily stay on point about what is important and who or what is not.
I prefer to focus on how our personal feelings about 'Toms' 'crackers' etc are manifested in our strategies to alleviate, reduce, eliminate and develop alternatives for the problems that affect our peoples.You assume that these two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. I beg to differ. I can/will call a Tom a Tom, when I encounter one, a cracker a cracker when I encounter one AND insist that WE implement strategies, mental changes, behavioral changes to deal with what goes on in our community. Walking and chewing gum at the same time, is quite doable for me. The Nation of Islam has been doing just that for 60 years or more.
One thing about |Malcolm X that you''ll ntice is that when he was interviewed on the various talk and radio shows, many of them with very confrontational hosts, his personal feelings about the hosts never became THE issue. Any public appearance became an opportunity to educate and advance the cause of our people, to inform any blacks or whites who were tuned in.HIs personal feelings may not have become the ISSUE,but he certainly was not adverse to referring to/characterizing someone as a Tom, a handkerchief head,a House N****r a Klansman or anything else he felt was TRUE about them or their ilk, even when doing an interview or on a panel . Malcolm and Farrakhan after him,(and NOI members in general), tend to be unfailingly polite and civil when dealing with people one on one, be they Black or white. That is a function of style and demeanor,self discipline, and strategy. Understand it well, and can do it well, when I am of a mind, or in the mood to.....
Being it was on FOX, I'm quite sure that the host represents the views of that station. It appears that Malik Shabazz knew that also. So strategically, why was he there. To say F--- you? As Sonia Sanchez once wrote in one of her poems..."Uh huh...but how does that free US?" Once you go on that show you elevate that show. You establish the legitimacy of the show. If you are on that show to show your contempt for the host (for whatever reason) then prepare to do that. If you are on that show to advance the cause of our people...then be prepared to do that.You'll get no argument with me on Malik Shabazz. See my response to the thread starter, regarding Malik. I already said he has always struck me as strident and over the top,(I said that without waiting to hear anyone elses opinion,btw), because I'm already VERY familiar with him. I also said I had some reservations about him and that I find over the top type's, suspect. I didn't elaborate, cause I don't like to go off half cocked about folks,casting unproven aspersions and what not, but his status as a staple on the show of someone like Bill Cracker O'reilly, is part of what makes him SUSPECT to me, and I"m gonna leave it at that. Ya'll can infer what you will from it.........
Agree with you enemy if he acknowledges a point that you agree with and then co-opt the point by pointing to a strategy that your enemy, if he/she really believes what they are saying, should also agree with. No problem with this, but being a person who doesn't like it when people try to insult my intelligence(particularly people whom I don't think are as smart as I am), I like to let MOFOS know, if and when I think they are full of sh*t, and are being DISINGENOUS about what they are saying. That's just me though, I admittedly sometimes have to leave the: rituals/playing footsies with the enemy, to others who have the stomach and the patience for it, cause I usually don't........I reiterate, Michelle Malkin can kiss my Black ass.
A bigoted commentator once applauded the Million Man March for its call for Black men to be faithful husbands and providers. Rather than sounding the 'cracker' out as a 'voice for the right wing' the Nation of Islam representative thanked him and remarked how so many of these husbands were ex-cons and how they would apprecitate it this bigot would begin to support the un-equal sentencing and lack of rehabilitation present in the American justice system.See above paragraph.
You either expose hypocrisy or your advance your cause.Or if you're really smart and resolute, you do BOTH........
So I'm questioning the intent of the above post.
Malik Shabazz and his crew errored by judging and convicting and condemning these people in public (something strategically the NAACP Legal Fund has been fighting against for years). He then went on a TV program, hosted by someone opposed to you to defend his error.Again, see my original comments on Malik. I am very familiar with the dude, have been observing him for YEARS, and would never be dumb enough to jump off a cliff based on anything he said,lol.
The host may be a right-wing racist but the points RAISED on her show were not. And anyone in that same situation should be prepared to separate their personal antipathy towards a person and their committment for a cause.Again, you assume that these things are mutually exclusive. Maybe they are for YOU. They are not for me. Both and, my friend, not either or...........
Instead Malik Shabazz showed himself to be the stereotypical 'negro' showcased in the play NO PLACE TO BE SOMEBODY "Black means being LOUD.....and WRONG".You're preaching to the choir..........
There is a friend of mine in Philadelphia who has just finished a film called "NO!". It's a documentary about the silence of Black Men concerning rape in the African-American community. It particularly affects me because several friends were in the documentary who were raped and I never knew it. As soon as I find the site I'll recommend the documentary. There is a discussion between Black men in the documentary with this main point for those blaming the lack of respect for black women on slavery. African-American women can't and won't wait for Black men to deal with white men before we stop raping them. (I include myself in the incusive 'we')And this is what you gathered from MY earlier reply? Reread it, please.
In the Oprah show yesterday. the students from Spelman (predominately African-American female university in Atlanta) made a point about accountability.
During the height of the crack crisis we made a big point of blaming the suppliers (the supposed CIA, the Columbians, and other shadowy forces) for allowing drugs into the black community and 'causing us to become addicts". So, except for some yeoman community initiatives, our militants railed against the those who supplied the drugs and not those who used it.
And now, when a crew of black youths (I won't say poor and deprived because many are not such as Tupac) SUPPLY the world with the most depraved lyrics perpetuating the negative images of their people we now demand that the USERS must be held culpable and not the SUPPLIERS.I'm not demanding that the users be held accountable in this case. As I said, the users, ie. white folks, aren't doing anything different than what they've BEEN doing for centuries. I just said, since Oprah and company were in a TALKING mood, and want to discuss the ills of hip hop,the problems of misogyny and sexism, talk about it ALL, don't be half assed about it and act like these phenomenons are peculiar to, or sprang forth, fully formed from the imaginations of rappers, or Black men, even, . They didn't, and it's disingenous to act like they did. Particularly since the major consumers of said misogyny ARE NOT BLACK PEOPLE. THAT'S what I don't appreciate. If Oprah or any of these other Negroes who are SO concerned about the pathologies in our community could EVER have a discussion on them without invoking the name of Crackers, talking about how Crackers are confused about what they can and can't say to/about us these days/what's a poor white person to do/how come Crackers can't say what WE can say,or just generally being worried about what Crackers think/feel/ vis a vis, sh*t that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, and other assorted foolishness. You wouln't be hearing a peep from me. As far as staying on Black men's asses about the ways in which they have sought/continue to seek to replace white men as the oppressors/abusers of Black women, with THEMSELVES and how they had better disabuse themselves of that notion unless they want internal warfare/dissension like they've never seen(will make what white women did to white men in the 60's look like child's play). Honey, I can talk about that all day, and have talked about it in numerous threads on this board(and didn't need a racist outburst from cracker ,or a save/defend a cracker EVENT to do it, imagine that?). Ask around, I have somewhat of a rep as being dare i say it? a "feminist" around here,lol.
Both positions assume a weak, helpless, slave-like African-American community with no values or mores or structures to create an environment of accountability and internal fortitude to resist.
So who cares whether whites buy hip-hop or are the major users of cocaine? What type of community are we trying to build? One that fools itself that it is strong because no one attacks us?
I believe that if we get out of this "I AM A WAR-REE-YUR" complex (where we need to use our penlight to find some enemies) and get back to the business of nation-building we can more readily stay on point about what is important and who or what is not.
Your last 3 paragraphs are so far from what I'm arguing, they don't even warrant responses, straw man arguments, etc........
Okay....but...actually I was not trying to get YOU to say or DO anything. I don't know you. I elevated the discussion above the specifics of the events in question to strategy (or suggested strategies) for anyone who is ACTIVELY involved in moving a progressive movement forward. Input from someone who is involved in let's say, a woman's organization or the AAPRP or a community group trying to create Rites of Passage programs for black youths, or an AIDS group or organization that is actually addressing the issues of AIDS in the African communties (such as BEBASHI - Blacks Educating Blacks About Sexual Issues that my friend heads in Philly) or people like my friend Aishah who is actively involved in the issue of the tacit acceptance of rape in the African-American community. (Oh, I found her site on myspace. Is is http://www.myspace.com/afrolez ) The trailer for NO! is also there as well as information about the documentary.
But, for me, it would be interesting how folks involved in organizations handle their involvement with the media. Who speaks? Who is allowed to speak? And to whom?
Up until the death of Elijah Muhammad the NOI were not generally quoted or interviewed on media outside of Muhammad Speaks. I used Malcolm because Malcolm basically brought the NOI to the public eye in a way that he was sought out for these news shows. Up to then I don't know much about NOI's public media strategy.
I do know something about their personal strategy (at least as explained by Minister Jeremiah X Shabazz in Philly) and it was not really to be nice. It was meant to be sarcastic. Their view is that they wanted individuals to walk away angry,wanting to get even, wanting to prove them wrong. Prove their facts wrong. So they were encouraged to call folks "wooly-headed negroes", "deaf and dumb", etc. They wanted to drive folks to research and read and SEEK THEM OUT. It was an effective strategy.
We were trained by people associated with SNCC who had a highly developed strategy for personal interaction and public interaction. If you've ever noticed the personal and public styles of people like Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael, one of the founders of SNCC), Mario n Barry, former mayor in D.C. who was better known as a community activist (another founder of SNCC), Jimmy Garrett, who moved on to the student movement in California and later founded the Center for Black Education at 13th and Euclid in Washington, D.C. and others you will note that everything that they said carries the CAUSE forward. It was difficult to get them on a personal rant. If, for example, calling people 'crackers' advanced the cause, then it would be said...however...to my knowledge...to those fighting in the trenches (and by fighting I mean uplifting their people)...that was never a strategic weapon that advanced anything. Media people were chosen and any member of the group would not have to be worried about what was said about the group because they knew it would be related back to some item on their 5 point or 10 point plan.
Groups that did not have this discipline were easily splintered and turned against each other which is what happened with the US organization (Ron Karenga) and the Black Panthers Party in California whe they accepted the negative rumors against each other spread by the FBI which led to several shoot-outs and killings.
Just some case studies.
Anyhow, IMHO, the strength of forum boards is the ability to offer experiential information so that we all can be enlightened from practical knowledge. We can trade 'packets' and 'bytes' til Armageddon about theory and shoulda-woulda-coulda and build up our bragging rights while not affecting one single child.
So, it's not really pertinent what you COULD have written had you FELT like it. That's personal and parochial. Are you a member of an organization? In regards to this thread do you feel that your media policies are effective? Maybe you can share them with us.
Where I am we have no media to speak of and they are somewhat of a non-issue. Unlike America there is not that residential division between blacks and whites and they all pretty much share the same misery so the 'cracker' thing doesn't work much for us.
The group I used to be with in the States had to work in with and gain the support of diverse elements in the community. The whole 'cracker' and 'tom' thing didn't work for us there either. It gave us nothing and took away much. Is it useful as your group promotes it's agenda?
Okay...I tried to leave the I-ME out of this. (that also doesn't do much to push group agendas forward)
adrianerik wrote: Okay....but...actually I was not trying to get YOU to say or DO anything. I don't know you. I elevated the discussion above the specifics of the events in question to strategy (or suggested strategies) for anyone who is ACTIVELY involved in moving a progressive movement forward. Input from someone who is involved in let's say, a woman's organization or the AAPRP or a community group trying to create Rites of Passage programs for black youths, or an AIDS group or organization that is actually addressing the issues of AIDS in the African communties (such as BEBASHI - Blacks Educating Blacks About Sexual Issues that my friend heads in Philly) or people like my friend Aishah who is actively involved in the issue of the tacit acceptance of rape in the African-American community. (Oh, I found her site on myspace. Is is http://www.myspace.com/afrolez ) The trailer for NO! is also there as well as information about the documentary.My bad, I thought your WERE trying to get ME to do or say something, i.e. express MY opinions on a messageboard in a way that YOU deem fit. I am a member of at least one prominent African-American based organization and one that is not African American based(or U.S. based, even), but more focused on Global issues/human rights issues, don't care to name either of them, as they are not relevant to this discussion, or anyone's business.
But, for me, it would be interesting how folks involved in organizations handle their involvement with the media. Who speaks? Who is allowed to speak? And to whom? How the organizations that I belong to handle the media is also not relevant to this discussion, as I am NOT a media representative for them, but a member. So I can express myself how I damn well please, PARTICULARLY on a message board. In my earlier response, I alluded to the fact that the "rituals/protocol" song and dance is better left to those within an organization who have the stomach/patience for that. Well run organizations, like well run companies or well run sports teams, fit the abilities/strenghths of their people to the positions that they are best suited to, that's not rocket science. In other words, you wouldn't appoint a known hot-head, to be media representative or someone who is disorganized and scattered to be in charge of coordinating events or handling logistics, and so on.
Up until the death of Elijah Muhammad the NOI were not generally quoted or interviewed on media outside of Muhammad Speaks. I used Malcolm because Malcolm basically brought the NOI to the public eye in a way that he was sought out for these news shows. Up to then I don't know much about NOI's public media strategy.This is correct, and you will also note that eventhough Malcolm was quite disciplined and adopted a certain tone when in media interviews, when he was speaking TO Black people, or in Black environments, particularly early on, his language about white people(and certain Black people) could be QUITE insulting and perjorative. The media comment that got him into trouble, with HIS organization was not even a perjorative/personal attack type of comment, but rather one of cold hard truth, that for the particular environment/mood at the time, caused it to be incendiary."The chickens coming home to roost" comment regarding Kennedy's assasination. Ironic isn't it?
I do know something about their personal strategy (at least as explained by Minister Jeremiah X Shabazz in Philly) and it was not really to be nice. It was meant to be sarcastic. Their view is that they wanted individuals to walk away angry,wanting to get even, wanting to prove them wrong. Prove their facts wrong. So they were encouraged to call folks "wooly-headed negroes", "deaf and dumb", etc. They wanted to drive folks to research and read and SEEK THEM OUT. It was an effective strategy. Yep.
We were trained by people associated with SNCC who had a highly developed strategy for personal interaction and public interaction. If you've ever noticed the personal and public styles of people like Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael, one of the founders of SNCC), Mario n Barry, former mayor in D.C. who was better known as a community activist (another founder of SNCC), Jimmy Garrett, who moved on to the student movement in California and later founded the Center for Black Education at 13th and Euclid in Washington, D.C. and others you will note that everything that they said carries the CAUSE forward. It was difficult to get them on a personal rant. If, for example, calling people 'crackers' advanced the cause, then it would be said...however...to my knowledge...to those fighting in the trenches (and by fighting I mean uplifting their people)...that was never a strategic weapon that advanced anything. Media people were chosen and any member of the group would not have to be worried about what was said about the group because they knew it would be related back to some item on their 5 point or 10 point plan. THe Nation of Islam has as good,(more likely BETTER), record of transforming the lives of those in the BLack community(U.S.) in a PERSONAL hands on way, than any Black organization I can think of, including the ones you named and the one I'm a member of, wooly headed/deaf and dumb insults, not withstanding,lol.
Groups that did not have this discipline were easily splintered and turned against each other which is what happened with the US organization (Ron Karenga) and the Black Panthers Party in California whe they accepted the negative rumors against each other spread by the FBI which led to several shoot-outs and killings.
Intraorganizational in fighting, jealousy and disruption was not unique to the Panthers or the NOI, just read some of what Abernathy had to say about King or books like Parting the Waters. That type of thing is a function of anything involving human beings, particularly Black ones, and particularly ones that are being subjected to all out assault and sabotage from the Federal government,lol.SCLC was non violent so their jealousy and squabbling took on a more passive agressive manifestation(all that repressed rage), same substance different style......
Just some case studies.
Anyhow, IMHO, the strength of forum boards is the ability to offer experiential information so that we all can be enlightened from practical knowledge. We can trade 'packets' and 'bytes' til Armageddon about theory and shoulda-woulda-coulda and build up our bragging rights while not affecting one single child.
So, it's not really pertinent what you COULD have written had you FELT like it. That's personal and parochial. Are you a member of an organization? In regards to this thread do you feel that your media policies are effective? Maybe you can share them with us. See answers above regarding my organizational membership and disinclination to talk about WHAT organiztions I do or don't belong to, and what their media strategies or or are not,lol.
Where I am we have no media to speak of and they are somewhat of a non-issue. Unlike America there is not that residential division between blacks and whites and they all pretty much share the same misery so the 'cracker' thing doesn't work much for us.I gathered that from your overall response to my tone, as opposed to my content. Well, "cracker" works for us here in AMerica, QUITE well, since we're back to being personal and parochial......
The group I used to be with in the States had to work in with and gain the support of diverse elements in the community. The whole 'cracker' and 'tom' thing didn't work for us there either. It gave us nothing and took away much. Is it useful as your group promotes it's agenda?Again, you seem to think that I am speaking as a representative of my group, when on this Board, I am not(one of the reasons I decline to list the name of my group). ON this Board I speak for ME, that gives ME the freedom to be as personal and parochial(and throw around as many crackers, honkies, peckerwoods and N****rs, as I damn well please. See how that works?
Okay...I tried to leave the I-ME out of this. (that also doesn't do much to push group agendas forward)I wasn't trying to leave the I-Me out of this, so that's where you got me wrong.
