|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Moderated by: Saida.M, safetyblitz, Raven, Miss Brighter Days, LadyDay, Kunjufu, Kibibi, Happiness, Dillinger, Breadfruit, Backatya |
|
|
| Author | |
|---|
Gmahogany.
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 456 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday May 17th, 2007 15:20 |
|
I'm still waiting on clarification on the question you posed, too, C&J. In the meantime........
The following snippets are from a speech that Malcolm gave in Detroit,Michigan on February 14, 1965, exactly one week before he was killed,(his home had just been firebombed,btw). It gives you an excellent idea of where his head was at, and what his views were, how they had changed, if they had changed in any CORE way, post Hajj.
Malcolm discussing his views self defense/force:
"Whenever you and I are discussing our problems we need to be very objective, very cool, calm, collected. But that doesn't mean we should always be. There's a time to be cool and a time to be hot. See, you got messed up into thinking that there's only one time for everything. There's a time to love and a time to hate. Even Solomon said that, and he was in that Book too. You're just taking something out of the Book that fits your cowardly nature. And when you don't want to fight, you say, "Well, Jesus said don't fight." But I don't even believe Jesus said that."
"But since the white man, your "friend," took your language away from you during slavery, the only language you know is his language. You know, your friend's language. So you call for the same God he calls for. When he's putting a rope around your neck, you call for God and he calls for God. [Laughter and applause.] And you wonder why the one you call on never answers you."
Malcolm giving his views on white people and his trip to Mecca:
[size=
"Also I am very pleased to see so many who have come out to always see for yourself, where you can hear for yourself, and then think for yourself. Then you'll be in a better position to make an intelligent judgment for yourself. But if you form the habit of listening to what others say about something or some one or reading what someone else has written about someone, somebody can confuse you and misuse you. So as Afro-Americans or Black people here in the Western Hemisphere, you and I have to learn to weigh things for ourselves. No matter what the [white] man says, you better look into it." ]
"So when I got over there and went to Makkah and saw these people who were blond and blue-eyed and pale-skinned and all those things, I said, "Well!" But I watched them closely. And I noticed that though they were white, and they would call themselves white, there was a difference between them and the white one over here. And that basic difference was this: in Asia or the Arab world or in Africa, where the Muslims are, if you find one who says he's white, all he's doing is using an adjective to describe something that's incidental about him, one of his incidental characteristics; so there's nothing else to it, he's just white."
Malcolm making the distinction between white Arabs, and white people in America:
"But when you get the white man over here in America and he says he's white, he means something else. You can listen to the sound of his voice -- when he says he's white, he means he's a boss. That's right. That's what "white" means in this language. You know the expression, "free, white, and twenty-one." He made that up. He's letting you know all of them mean the same. "White" means free, boss. He's up there. So that when he says he's white he has a little different sound in his voice. I know you know what I'm talking about."
[size=Malcolm talking about how people are prone to buy into the media image/spin regarding him/taling about having a pleasant conversation with 2 white folks who didn't know who he was: ]
"And a good example of why it's so important to look into things for yourself: I was on a plane between Algiers and Geneva and it just happened that two other Americans were sitting in the two seats next to me. None of us knew each other and the other two were white, one a male, the other a female. And after we had been flying along for about forty minutes, the lady, she says, "Could I ask you a personal question?""[size=]
"I said, '"Yes." She said, "Well--" she had been looking at my briefcase, and she said, "Well, what does that X--" she says, "What kind of last name could you have that begins with X?" So I said, "That's it -- X." And she said, "Well, what does the 'M' stand for?" I said, "Malcolm." So she was quiet for about ten minutes, and she turned to me and she says, "You're not Malcolm X?""[size=]
"You see, we had been riding along in a nice conversation like three human beings, you know, no hostility, no animosity, just human. And she couldn't take this, she said, "Well you're not who I was looking for," you know. And she ended up telling me that she was looking for horns and all that, and for someone who was out to kill all white people, as if all white people could be killed. This was her general attitude, and this attitude had been given her -- this image had been given [to] her by the press."
Malcolm speaking on his views regarding nonviolence, again:
"That's a shame. Because we get tricked into being nonviolent, and when somebody stands up and talks like I just did, they say, "Why, he's advocating violence!" Isn't that what they say? Every time you pick up your newspaper, you see where one of these things has written into it that I'm advocating violence. I have never advocated any violence. I've only said that Black people who are the victims of organized violence perpetrated upon us by the Klan, the Citizens' Council, and many other forms, we should defend ourselves. And when I say that we should defend ourselves against the violence of others, they use their press skillfully to make the world think that I'm calling on violence, period. I wouldn't call on anybody to be violent without a cause. But I think the Black man in this country, above and beyond people all over the world, will be more justified when he stands up and starts to protect himself, no matter how many necks he has to break and heads he has to crack."
Malcolm speaking on how the Black Muslim movement, radicalized/affected the Civil Rights Movement:
"The 'Black Muslim' movement did make that contribution. They made the whole civil rights movement become more militant, and more acceptable to the white power structure. He would rather have them than us. In fact, I think we forced many of the civil rights leaders to be even more militant than they intended. I know some of them who get out there and "boom, boom, boom" and don't mean it. Because they're right on back in their corner as soon as the action comes."
Malcolm on the slickness of JFK and the so called "good" "liberal white folks", and how they often work in tandem/cahoots with the "bad" "evil" "racist" white folks:
"John F. Kennedy also saw that it was necessary for a new approach among the American Negroes. And during his entire term in office, he specialized in how to psycho the American Negro. Now, a lot of you all don't like my saying that, but I wouldn't ever take a stand on that if I didn't know what I was talking about. And I don't -- by living in this kind of society, pretty much around them -- and you know what I mean when I say "them" -- I learned to study them. You can think that they mean you some good ofttimes, but if you look at it a little closer you'll see that they don't mean you any good. That doesn't mean there aren't some of them who mean good. But it does mean that most of them don't mean good."[size=]
"Kennedy's new approach was pretending to go along with us in our struggle for civil rights and different other forms of rights. But I remember the expose that Look magazine did on Meredith's situation in Mississippi. Look magazine did an expose showing that Robert Kennedy and Governor Wallace -- not Governor Wallace, Governor Barnett -- had made a deal, wherein the attorney general was going to come down and try and force Meredith into school, and Barnett was going to stand at the door, you know, and say, "No, you can't come in." He was going to get in anyway. But it was all arranged in advance. And then Barnett was supposed to keep the support of the white racists, because that's who he was holding up, and Kennedy would keep the support of the Negroes, because that's who he'd be holding up. That's -- it was a cut-and-dried deal. And it's not a secret; it was written, they write about it. But if that's a deal and that's a deal, how many other deals do you think go down? What you think is on the level is crookeder, brothers and sisters, than a pretzel, which is most crooked."
Last edited on Thursday May 17th, 2007 15:21 by Gmahogany.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Gmahogany.
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 456 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday May 17th, 2007 15:27 |
|
I reiterate, these are comments that Malcolm made in February of 1965, a week before he died. The Watts(Los Angeles) riots broke out in August of that year. Furthermore, more rioting broke out in 1966, in New York and Philly, and in 1967 in Cleveland and DC, I think. After King was killed in 68, all hell broke loose. The rioting went on for YEARS, it may have been set off by this or that incident, but the causes for it, were just what Malcolm said the causes would be.
"If you tell them right now what is in store for 1965, they'll think you're crazy for sure. But 1965 will be the longest and hottest and bloodiest year of them all. It has to be, not because you want it to be, or I want it to be, or we want it to be, but because the conditions that created these explosions in 1963 are still here; the conditions that created explosions in '64 are still here. You can't say that you're not going to have an explosion and you leave the condition, the ingredients, still here. As long as those ingredients, explosive ingredients, remain, then you're going to have the potential for explosion on your hands."
"Brothers and sisters, let me tell you, I spend my time out there in the street with people, all kind of people, listening to what they have to say. And they're dissatisfied, they're disillusioned, they're fed up, they're getting to the point of frustration where they are beginning to feel: What do they have to lose? And when you get to that point you're the type of person who can create a very dangerously explosive atmosphere. This is what's happening in our neighborhood, to our people. I read in a poll taken by Newsweek magazine this week, saying that Negroes are satisfied. Oh yes, poll you know, in Newsweek, supposed to be a top magazine with a top pollster, talking about how satisfied Negroes are. Maybe I haven't met the Negroes he met. Because I know he hasn't met the ones that I've met."
"But this is dangerous. This is where the white man does himself the most harm. He invents statistics to create an image, thinking that that image is going to hold things in check. You know why they always say Negroes are lazy? 'Cause they want Negroes to be lazy. They always say Negroes can't unite because they don't want Negroes to unite. And once they put this thing in the mind, they feel that the Negro gets that into him and he tries to fulfill their image. If you say you can't unite him, and then you come to him to unite him, he won't unite because it's been said that he's not supposed to unite. It's a psycho that they work, and it's the same way with these statistics."
"When they think that an explosive era is coming up, then they grab their press again and begin to shower the Negro public, to make it appear that all Negroes are satisfied. Because if you know that you're dissatisfied all by yourself and ten others aren't, you play it cool; but you know if all ten of you are dissatisfied, you get with it. Well, this is what the man knows. The man knows that if these Negroes find out how dissatisfied they really are -- and all of them, even Uncle Tom is dissatisfied, he's just playing his part for now -- this is what makes them frightened. It frightens them in France, it frightens them in England, and it frightens them in the United States."
Last edited on Tuesday May 22nd, 2007 11:47 by Gmahogany.
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Friday May 18th, 2007 03:05 |
|
Gmahogany. wrote: Jay Jay wrote: Who are you arguing or discussing with? Ummm......, YOU.
Throughout this thread you have made assumptions and responded to your own assumptions, never once have you tried to seek proper clarification. Example: Why did you call me sweetheart? please show any of my posts where I said I have a vagina! I haven't responded to my assumptions, I've responded to what you have said, both explicitly and implicitly. I didn't call you sweetheart because I thought you had a vagina. I assumed(maybe erroneously), that you were male, since I have a vagina, I sometimes call people sweetheart, whether they are in possession of a vagina or not. If you are male, and were offended because u assumed I was male, than I'm not the one who should have sought clarification, now am I?
You got me, I was wrong to make an assumption, I put my hands up to that(swallow pride) no biggy. It's embrassing to me how rough you are then, the missing link has been found.
It doesn't matter that the very first thing I wrote is this :
can violent action ever be justified?
If it is used under the guises of courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive"
It's SO blatently in your face what I mean, yet you are arguing semantics with me.
It gets better......
Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.
The key word is transforming.
If the keyword is transforming, what is the key word?
When your enemy sees YOU as exactly the same as they are, THEY will transform into a friend and visa versa. You have to start thinking for yourself, you will never understand anything if it's spoon fed to you. This you will have to learn on your own.
A rattle snake can be deadly, Force. A rattle snake with the rattle removed is just as deadly, only you don't hear it coming, Power. this is ultimately how I am defining things.
Thoughout this thread I have just observed how you behaive...I mentioned how you would react in a tribalistic way, this is nothing to do with colour but a pack mentality which doesn't allow independent thought away from the group, otherwise you get attacked. I mentioned your pride and can you swallow it, you can't!! even to the point where I believe you might lie just
to try and play smart. expend very little expansive brain power, to respond. a 2hr+ edit says you lie to be smart, signature feature on? cant find it. Well it could just be my oversight, if so than I'll apologize in advance, no biggy.
You have displayed force throughout this thread using the exact definitions I gave in the beginning.(this is not to say I am power) You are predictable and therefore easy for any oppressor to manage, all they've got to listen out for is the sound of a peanut rattling in your skull to hear you coming, you are not for knowledge/Power. I've said my piece there is nothing more to add,
the thread is yours bye bye.
I will leave you with how I started.
 can violent action ever be justified?
If it is used under the guises of courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive"
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Gmahogany.
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 456 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Friday May 18th, 2007 04:46 |
|
Jay Jay wrote: You got me, I was wrong to make an assumption, I put my hands up to that(swallow pride) no biggy. It's embrassing to me how rough you are then, the missing link has been found. I'm not rough at all, I'm quite a woman, and a lady;ask around this Board, I just don't suffer fools gladly. You ought to be embarrassed about how much you're making yourself look like a whiny little b**ch. "Gmahogany, you don't know how to talk to people, ooooo, Gmahogany you're being too rough",LOL. If all it takes to get you to piss and moan like this, is a little passionately debated, message board discussion, wow! I'd hate to see you in a REAL conflict. It's no wonder that you subscribe to such mamby pamby drivel, in reference to dealing with conflict/enemies. It all makes sense now...... It doesn't matter that the very first thing I wrote is this :
can violent action ever be justified?
If it is used under the guises of courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive"
It's SO blatently in your face what I mean, yet you are arguing semantics with me. I'm not arguing semantics with you. I saw the statement about courage,reason etc. I noticed that you chose the word "guises", and objected to that characterization,I noticed the "love for all" part, which I took issue with, though that is not what caused me to respond to u. What caused my response was your quotaton from King about "transforming your enemy", AND your characterizations of Ghandi and Malcolm, as I already stated to you. You keep reiterating sh*t, that I didn't even object to, and ACTING like you don't know what I did object to.
It gets better......
Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.
The key word is transforming.
If the keyword is transforming, what is the key word?
When your enemy sees YOU as exactly the same as they are, THEY will transform into a friend and visa versa. You have to start thinking for yourself, you will never understand anything if it's spoon fed to you. This you will have to learn on your own. I see, so it IS up to the abused/oppressed to convince the opressor/abuser that they(the abused/oppressed)are the SAME as/"just as good" as the abuser/oppressor. The only people worthy of not being abused and oppressed by me, are those who are exactly the SAME as me. Is that it? And if I can't convince my enemy that I am exactly the same as them(because I'm NOT exactly the same as them and don't want to be), I should just resign myself to a lifetime of uncontested ass whippings, and abuse/ mistreatment?That sounds like quite the winning strategy to me. No wonder you were so hesitant to elaborate on it,lol. You should have continued with your initial strategy of ducking and dodging,lol.... BTW,I do think for myself, and that is the silliest sh*t I've ever heard in my life. There are myriad reasons why people abuse and mistreat other people, that have nothing to do with not viewing that person as being the same as them, and even if that IS what the reason is, I would suggest that there are BETTER ways, to let someone know that you are the same as them, like letting them know you will respond to mistreatment the SAME DAMN WAY they would/do, by going upside their head,lol. Why not use that as a way of BONDING with your enemy, if that's your goal?
A rattle snake can be deadly, Force. A rattle snake with the rattle removed is just as deadly, only you don't hear it coming, Power. this is ultimately how I am defining things.
Thoughout this thread I have just observed how you behaive...I mentioned how you would react in a tribalistic way, this is nothing to do with colour but a pack mentality which doesn't allow independent thought away from the group, otherwise you get attacked. I mentioned your pride and can you swallow it, you can't!! even to the point where I believe you might lie just
Tribalistic, pack mentality? Huh?Again with the melodrama. YOU weren't attacked, your STANCE was,actually KIng /Ghandi's stances were, cause you quoted/referenced/regurgitated THEIR drivel. To the extent that things DID get personal, you have contributed to that, with your little sideways, b**chified insults and comments. Furthermore, stop flattering yourself into thinking that YOU are taking the UNIQUE, UNPOPULAR, NOVEL view. You are not. You are taking the same bullsh*t view that has been foisted apon Negroes since anyone can remember. This messageboard is one of the FEW places, where that view is not the prevailing one, which is probably why you've been so easily reduced to TEARS, by the "roughness" of the debate,lol. to try and play smart. expend very little expansive brain power, to respond. a 2hr+ edit says you lie to be smart, signature feature on? cant find it. Well it could just be my oversight, if so than I'll apologize in advance, no biggy. Listen you little punk, who are YOU for me to be lying to? I don't know of anyone who would need 2 hrs to edit a friggin post, and I CERTAINLY don't need that kind of time.If someone is just moderately active on this Board, they wouldn't be able to do much else in a given day, except edit posts,following your logic. I don't know about you, but I have a job. THe fact that you keep harping on that, makes me think that this is the kind of time YOU need to type YOUR sh*t. If so, I'm sorry for you. As to the signature thing, I wasn't saying that YOUR signature feature wasn't on, I was saying that MINE wasn't, because I think there is a way to turn it off and on, so you can or can't see people's signatures. I can't see ANYONE'S signature, Einstein. I think YOU are predisposed to lie/shift positions and some more sh*t, rather than be a man and defend your statements in a straight up way, instead of throwing up every kind of distraction you can think of(how long it took me to edit,what tone I used when talking to you, who framed Roger Rabbit, etc), to take the attention off of the fact that you can't defend your stance,effectively.
You have displayed force throughout this thread using the exact definitions I gave in the beginning.(this is not to say I am power) You are predictable and therefore easy for any oppressor to manage, all they've got to listen out for is the sound of a peanut rattling in your skull to hear you coming, you are not for knowledge/Power. I've said my piece there is nothing more to add, You are full of sh*t. I told you what PARTS of your posts I objected to, including your comments about no resolution being reached if BOTH sides refuse to change. As if oppresive situations like what went on in the American South or went on in South Africa was comparable to the Crips and the Bloods or some other gang warfare,bullsh*t turf war, with 2 equally AGGRESSIVE/BELLIGERENT groups. The sh*t you are talking MAY apply to situations like gang warfare, but it is totally inappropriate and INSULTING to mention it in the types of situations that you cited.
the thread is yours bye bye. The thread was mine ANYWAY. I OWNED you. You can't give me what I already had, but thanks anyway..........
I will leave you with how I started.
can violent action ever be justified?
If it is used under the guises of courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive"
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Peacemaker
Villager
| Joined: | Saturday May 15th, 2004 |
| Location: | ><_>< |
| Posts: | 3892 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Monday May 21st, 2007 11:07 |
|
Can violent action ever be justified.
Where survival is concerned most certainly, it's instinct. In fact that instinct should be used more often, especially with fire. Fire is art.
Last edited on Monday May 21st, 2007 11:09 by Peacemaker
____________________
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Kunjufu
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday May 22nd, 2007 00:19 |
|
Jay Jay wrote:
What I'm saying here is to go out into the streets and ask a broad range of people what did these people represent, not your local area and to ask all colours of skin. You can ask virtually all black people about Malcom and in all likeyhood he will be held in high esteem. How about outside of the community, what do they think? Ask the same people about other names like MLK, Ghandi and Mandela, truth is they will hold them with a much higher esteem, some wont even know of Malcom.
Jay jay: on this point only..I agree with you that the Western media PUSH Ghandi, MLK and Mandela as the BEST model's of the catylst for change.... however just because these people are prominent does not make them or their model of behaviour effective or the BEST approach to take...
Conversely I would argue that in each example that far from being effectively their stance only delayed the inevitable which was armed or violent inserrection......now if Memory serves after Ghandi forced the British out of India...a near civil war broke out in the country non?....When King was killed didn't that lead to the Watts riots and wasn't that violence in fact that was the catalyst that forced lyndon Johnson to force through civil rights reforms... I would argue that the Kennedy's it could be argued never intended to put in place the reforms King and the civil rights campaigners wanted.. and in fact they were stringing him along.. as the lesser of two evils..
Finally lets be honest here Mandela did not force peace..the ANC did through ARMED resistance and terrorism....and lets us be very honest.....Mandela was more than a poster boy for the white rulling class of Azania...and unless the ANC can stem the issue of housing, jobs/poverty and social inequality that still exists...I suspect that you may have armed conflict in Azania before long...
So lets not be putting these three on a pedestal as the becon of change, they weren't and their strategy imo only delays the obvious armed conflict that will follow....because imo (again) power does not derived meritocracy, appeasement or for that matter dignity..that is horse do-do....Power is taken not given period!!!
____________________
African heart, African mind
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Gmahogany.
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 456 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday May 22nd, 2007 11:31 |
|
Kunjufu wrote: Jay Jay wrote:
What I'm saying here is to go out into the streets and ask a broad range of people what did these people represent, not your local area and to ask all colours of skin. You can ask virtually all black people about Malcom and in all likeyhood he will be held in high esteem. How about outside of the community, what do they think? Ask the same people about other names like MLK, Ghandi and Mandela, truth is they will hold them with a much higher esteem, some wont even know of Malcom.
Jay jay: on this point only..I agree with you that the Western media PUSH Ghandi, MLK and Mandela as the BEST model's of the catylst for change.... however just because these people are prominent does not make them or their model of behaviour effective or the BEST approach to take...
Conversely I would argue that in each example that far from being effectively their stance only delayed the inevitable which was armed or violent inserrection......now if Memory serves after Ghandi forced the British out of India...a near civil war broke out in the country non?....When King was killed didn't that lead to the Watts riots and wasn't that violence in fact that was the catalyst that forced lyndon Johnson to force through civil rights reforms... I would argue that the Kennedy's it could be argued never intended to put in place the reforms King and the civil rights campaigners wanted.. and in fact they were stringing him along.. as the lesser of two evils..
Finally lets be honest here Mandela did not force peace..the ANC did through ARMED resistance and terrorism....and lets us be very honest.....Mandela was more than a poster boy for the white rulling class of Azania...and unless the ANC can stem the issue of housing, jobs/poverty and social inequality that still exists...I suspect that you may have armed conflict in Azania before long...
So lets not be putting these three on a pedestal as the becon of change, they weren't and their strategy imo only delays the obvious armed conflict that will follow....because imo (again) power does not derived meritocracy, appeasement or for that matter dignity..that is horse do-do....Power is taken not given period!!!
Mild correction, Kunjufu. The Watts riots broke out in 1965, the year Malcolm died, and 3 years BEFORE King died. There was also rioting, throughout the country, after King died in 68. The rioting that occured in 65 was an example of what Malcolm had been saying all along(and had predicted,btw), which is that Black folks were FED UP, and no amount of turning the other cheek rhetoric and Black "leaders" saying everything was peachy keen, would be able to stem that tide. The 65 riots were also a harbinger of what I said about King's tactics losing effectiveness and popularity(not that everyone Black embraced them in the first place), even BEFORE King died, and King having to adjust his own stance to the Black Power movement which was gaining steam, which was not only inevitable, but was the physical manifestation of everything that Malcolm had been talking about.....
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Gmahogany.
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 456 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday May 22nd, 2007 11:49 |
|
I reiterate, these are comments that Malcolm made in February of 1965, a week before he died. The Watts(Los Angeles) riots broke out in August of that year. Furthermore, more rioting broke out in 1966, in New York and Philly, and in 1967 in Cleveland and DC, I think. After King was killed in 68, all hell broke loose. The rioting went on for YEARS, it may have been set off by this or that incident, but the causes for it, were just what Malcolm said the causes would be.
"If you tell them right now what is in store for 1965, they'll think you're crazy for sure. But 1965 will be the longest and hottest and bloodiest year of them all. It has to be, not because you want it to be, or I want it to be, or we want it to be, but because the conditions that created these explosions in 1963 are still here; the conditions that created explosions in '64 are still here. You can't say that you're not going to have an explosion and you leave the condition, the ingredients, still here. As long as those ingredients, explosive ingredients, remain, then you're going to have the potential for explosion on your hands."
"Brothers and sisters, let me tell you, I spend my time out there in the street with people, all kind of people, listening to what they have to say. And they're dissatisfied, they're disillusioned, they're fed up, they're getting to the point of frustration where they are beginning to feel: What do they have to lose? And when you get to that point you're the type of person who can create a very dangerously explosive atmosphere. This is what's happening in our neighborhood, to our people. I read in a poll taken by Newsweek magazine this week, saying that Negroes are satisfied. Oh yes, poll you know, in Newsweek, supposed to be a top magazine with a top pollster, talking about how satisfied Negroes are. Maybe I haven't met the Negroes he met. Because I know he hasn't met the ones that I've met."
"But this is dangerous. This is where the white man does himself the most harm. He invents statistics to create an image, thinking that that image is going to hold things in check. You know why they always say Negroes are lazy? 'Cause they want Negroes to be lazy. They always say Negroes can't unite because they don't want Negroes to unite. And once they put this thing in the mind, they feel that the Negro gets that into him and he tries to fulfill their image. If you say you can't unite him, and then you come to him to unite him, he won't unite because it's been said that he's not supposed to unite. It's a psycho that they work, and it's the same way with these statistics."
"When they think that an explosive era is coming up, then they grab their press again and begin to shower the Negro public, to make it appear that all Negroes are satisfied. Because if you know that you're dissatisfied all by yourself and ten others aren't, you play it cool; but you know if all ten of you are dissatisfied, you get with it. Well, this is what the man knows. The man knows that if these Negroes find out how dissatisfied they really are -- and all of them, even Uncle Tom is dissatisfied, he's just playing his part for now -- this is what makes them frightened. It frightens them in France, it frightens them in England, and it frightens them in the United States
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Kunjufu
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday May 22nd, 2007 12:45 |
|
Gmahogany: i stand corrected on that point, I didn't check my facts thanks for updating that point...
____________________
African heart, African mind
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday May 23rd, 2007 17:24 |
|
@ Kunjufu
I'll give you an explanation, I was comming from a purely objectional view with no sentiments attached as how violence can be used, but more to the point how it (violence) wins if it is backed with integrity. I actually agree with all your posts, but thats not the angle I'm coming from. There were crossed wires and when I relised this I constantly told people to read my 1st post again, everything follows from there, If some people wants to think I'm talking about a pacifist stance against someone coming at me with a hammer, then I will say to them you are arguing with what you think, not what I mean.
Can violent actions ever be justified?
If it (violence) is used under the guises of
(to be presented/ presented with) courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive. It wins because it has no agenda other than the truth.
If you have to fight and use violence and have truth, integrity etc... behind you, You will win. This is because anything oppressive is selfish by nature and selflessness will win out eventually, history has shown this time and time again and can take anywhere from 1yr-2000yrs
Then I go on to chat about what I think works and sometimes dont work against oppressive regimes, nothing is set, no ideals, no sentiments, no politics, no media portrails. Power can win with or without force depending on the circumstances over time, any oppressor only has force on there side. I'm not talking about the history of America, Azania or India but assigning the outcomes with the labels power and force, nothing more. Another example is the middle east conflict, neither side looking at it objectively again wants to resolve it, both sides has broken treaties, therefore I would assign both Israel & Palestine as Force. The first person to stand up heads and shoulders above the rest to finally resolve this, I would allocate as Power.
Ultimately Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." again looking at it objectively it is a true statement, no sentimants, no colour, no politics, how else can you change an enemy into a friend? how people get to this point and how long it actually takes is entirely another matter. I'm not a pacifist but its a true statement, I'm not a buddhist but my signature, no ideals, no sentiments, no politics, no media portrails is also a true statement.
@Gmahogany
Anybody looking into an African communites philosophy forum will be presented with bullsh*t, mofos, N****r, whiney little b**ch.... they might say.....Doh! looks like we don't have to worry about them for a long time.
Would you like some fried chicken with that my stereotypical friend?
You've excelled yourself, how many times have I mentioned for you to re read the 1st post? how many times have I said you are arguing with what you think ie: yourself? You've missed the angle I was coming from and served yourself, many times, I let you carry on down the wrong track, if we were honest you didn't give me any chance did you?
Here's another example, if I say:
It's embrassing to me how rough you are then, the missing link has been found.
You say:
I'm not rough at all, I'm quite a woman, and a lady; ask around this Board, I just don't suffer fools gladly. You ought to be embarrassed about how much you're making yourself look like a whiny little b**ch. "Gmahogany, you don't know how to talk to people, ooooo, Gmahogany you're being too rough?",LOL. If all it takes to get you to piss and moan like this, is a little passionately debated, message board discussion, wow! I'd hate to see you in a REAL conflict.
Ahhh armchair banditary, where the weak pretends to be strong by hiding behind a annonymous pseudonym pointless bit of nonsense. You still didn't follow what was being said to you, it flew right over your head, this made me laugh.  ? I was saying how rough you are, you're no diamond, you are the missing link in the evolutionary chain Ms Gmahogorilla your royal roughness!!! That's why I find you amusing, I told you before, you're my clown.
The thread was mine ANYWAY. I OWNED you. You can't give me what I already had, but thanks anyway..........
Your ego owned you, there's a thread in this forum precisely about this matter.
Last edited on Wednesday May 23rd, 2007 17:48 by Jay Jay
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Kunjufu
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday May 23rd, 2007 17:52 |
|
Jay Jay wrote:
Can violent actions ever be justified?
If it (violence) is used under the guises of
(to be presented/ presented with) courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive. It wins because it has no agenda other than the truth.
Jay..jay: i wasn't able to make much sense of your previous post because I wasn't clear which YOUr opinion and which bits were the opinion of others.... However Assuming the above is your view. I would say this..that techically i agree with the above in an ideal world... However for in reality, i feel once you resort to violence then its not about truth, courage or reason....its about the COMMITMENT to win period!!!
I say this because for me the three things you pointed out, are and can be present in evil regimes..the truth is to be fair in the eye of the beholder..(the Isreali/Palestine) speaks to that truth..Further i could also argue that courage and reason were equally present in the third Reich.... and the allied forces..in fact i could argue that both were equally guilty of human rights violations..
So my point i suppose is this, when violence is involved it will never be a simple black and white or that one side has complete integrity over the other.....that in my mind will never occur....
____________________
African heart, African mind
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday May 23rd, 2007 18:29 |
|
Again I agree totally with the statement, commitment to win, if you are oppressed this is still selflessness because you want the oppression to stop, Selflessness is still Power because it's coming from a higher end of integrity, it will win eventually.
You'are right the 3rd Reich, the army might have had courage(power) but it was under control of a meglomaniac(force), when meglomania hits they eventually crash and burn with stupidity who wants to fight Russia in the winter, samething with Napleloen.
Last edited on Wednesday May 23rd, 2007 18:42 by Jay Jay
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Gmahogany.
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 456 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday May 24th, 2007 00:10 |
|
Jay Jay wrote:
@Gmahogany
Anybody looking into an African communites philosophy forum will be presented with bullsh*t, mofos, N****r, whiney little b**ch.... they might say.....Doh! looks like we don't have to worry about them for a long time. See, that's your problem. You're too worried about what OTHER people,read;white people are thinking, in reference to what African people say or, or how we say it, on an African forum. What white people or any other people think about how I choose to express myself on an AFrican forum, does not concern me(check some of the N-word threads on here, I don't TOO much care what other BLACK folks think about how I express myself,so you're barking up the wrong tree). Secondly, how GMahogany chooses to express herself is not reflective of anyone else's personal style, except Gmahogany. So any non Black person who would come in and make conclusions about the African collective, based on how one poster chooses to express herself, PROBABLY, already has Black people pegged a certain way, ANYWAY, which means what they do or don't think about Black folks and how we speak among ourselves, figures into my list of concerns LESS than what the average non Black person, does or doesn't think about such matters, and that would be a big ol Zilch/Zero.... Secondly, what is MORE likely to give OTHERs,further smug assurance about Black folks(if that type of thing is something that keeps you awake at night), is when they come in here and see that some of us are still talking that turn the other cheek, love your enemy bullsh*t(eventhough everything they've attained and are able to maintain came from NOT subcribing to any of that foolishness,lol. Beyond that, I can be as civilized,genteel, and philisophical as the next person in tone and content, when I WANT to be. WHen I"m not, it's usually because the person I'm addressing, has INSPIRED me to adopt a certain tone with them, and ingratiating myself to them or respecting their sensibilities is not high on my priority list.
Would you like some fried chicken with that my stereotypical friend? Once again, because I choose to express myself a certain way,(in YOUR mind), some Black stereotype is being upheld in the minds of the others;read white folks, who may be watching/reading....Are you even capable of having a conversation without keeping a running mental list of what Crackers may be thinking about everything you and or the other Black person you are interacting with may be saying? I find it very telling that this type of thing seems to preoccupy you. Beyond that, I assure you that there is not one word on the list you gave, that Mr. Charlie and Ms. Anne have not heard,and probably USED,lol.
You've excelled yourself, how many times have I mentioned for you to re read the 1st post? how many times have I said you are arguing with what you think ie: yourself? You've missed the angle I was coming from and served yourself, many times, I let you carry on down the wrong track, if we were honest you didn't give me any chance did you? And again, I've READ your 1st post. I don't know why you keep thinking that what you wrote was so deep and profound, or NEW, that it couldnt' be deciphered. I've told you several times WHICH parts of your post I disagreed with. That is ALL I have addressed. Honestly, I haven't even gotten as deep into that as I can. You and others like you, are fond of throwing around terms like "love", "enemy", "friend". To REALLY get into a discussion like that, we would need some operational definitions. Everyone doesn't have the same thing in mind, when throwing those words around, I find. I'm can't be bothered really, because A. I don't think you can turn a REAL enemy into a friend(at least in my conception of enemies and friends), and B. I don't desire to do so. You talked about lessons you learned at 5, well I learned a few, too. One of them is that you will NEVER get everybody to like you(if they do, something's wrong), much less be your friend,(because people's reasons for not liking you, often have nothing to do with you-that's a concept that it's very difficult for egotistical people to grasp,since folks wanna bring up ego..), which of course means making them "like you", is an impossibility,even if it is your slavish/low self esteem having, desire; IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU,oftimes.
Here's another example, if I say:
It's embrassing to me how rough you are then, the missing link has been found.
You say:
I'm not rough at all, I'm quite a woman, and a lady; ask around this Board, I just don't suffer fools gladly. You ought to be embarrassed about how much you're making yourself look like a whiny little b**ch. "Gmahogany, you don't know how to talk to people, ooooo, Gmahogany you're being too rough?",LOL. If all it takes to get you to piss and moan like this, is a little passionately debated, message board discussion, wow! I'd hate to see you in a REAL conflict.
Ahhh armchair banditary, where the weak pretends to be strong by hiding behind a annonymous pseudonym pointless bit of nonsense. You still didn't follow what was being said to you, it flew right over your head, this made me laugh. ? I was saying how rough you are, you're no diamond, you are the missing link in the evolutionary chain Ms Gmahogorilla your royal roughness!!! That's why I find you amusing, I told you before, you're my clown.
Again, you think you're deeper than you are. I understood you to be saying that I was rough, I also understood you to be connecting that comment to your suprise that I was a woman(which is why you made that comment directly after saying that you were suprised to find out I was a woman). You didn't SPECIFICALLY say that I was being too rough,(a little hyperbole on my part), but you DID say that I didn't know how to talk to people in an earlier post. I was commenting on your genenral b**ching and moaning about my tone/timbre/use of profanity,non willingness to adopt/embrace a victim/doormat philosophy,(and connecting that to me being a woman), etc. all which seem to have offended your delicate sensibilities,and MOST sinful of all, horror of horrors,possibly having the effect....giving....white folks.....the wrong idea......about.......US..... BTW,I am quite capable of batting my eyelashes, and protecting the male ego(though I don't/won't as a general rule), when I'm in the mood to, or have a reason to,even if they are completely and utterly talking out of their ass, I"m capable of being tactful in disagreement with males and females, if I like and respect the male or female that I'm interacting with. If not, well............. Secondly, there has been no effort on my part to convince you or anyone else that I am strong,(I just endeavor to never willingly be a doormat/punching bag for anyone, for any reason and encourage others to do the same). I was shocked and continue to be shocked that what I was saying and how I said it seemed to disturb you/offend your sensibilities so much.(some of it i believe is bullsh*t though, cause it hasn't stopped you from continuing to make little b**chified snide comments/insults even in THIS very post). Funny to me how people think as long as they don't use profanity, they aren't being insulting or confrontational, or offensive, even when they're making sarcastic comments/insults all the while. Very passive aggressive, and cowardly,imo, but I digress..... YOU'VE been saying that I was "rough, using force",etc.in this thread, I've been DENYING those things:I've been saying things like "i'm very peaceful and loving"etc,,lol, so for you to then turn around and accuse me of false bravado and chest thumping of some kind, is really funny, and typical of how you seem to like to twist sh*t around/grasp at straws, to save your shipwreck of an argument.....
Your ego owned you, there's a thread in this forum precisely about this matter.
Like I said before, whatver you gotta tell yourself, sweetheart. Your stance/position has been effectively deconstructed/rejected/dismissed by SEVERAL people in this thread. To the extent that my posts contributed to that GROUP EFFORT,lol, I still wouldn't seriously take credit for it. THe unsoundness of much of what you've said, is SELF EVIDENT, and again, for the umpteenth time, your argument is not NEW, so the responses/counter arguments are not New either, just expressed in a unique,very expressive way,maybe.....
Beyond that, you've continued to try to feign being misunderstood/misinterpreted throughout the thread,(which means several people were understanding you to be saying just what I understand you to be saying). That tells me either you are NOT being misinterpreted, the theory you're forwarding doesn't hold water and you're shifting positions / playing a semantics game, OR you are doing an ATROCIOUS job of CONVEYING your glorious theory. I'm inclined to believe the former, rather than the latter, but that's just me.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
| | | |
