No Malcolm X = No Martin Luther King

[isitme]

Is this true do you think?

The young radical Nation of Islam Malcolm I mean

What I mean is that the only reason that Martin Luther King was allowed to become such a powerful figure was because of Malcolm X laying the groundwork with his militancy

The fact that he was moderate and anti racist would have meant nothing if he had been around before Malcolm because what is the point in moderation if you aren't moderating anything?

I'm quite interested in that cos Ive only read a handful of stuff about that, and I'd like to know how true that is

But I'm also interested in the implications, if this is the case, is it just as pointless for any group to try and be moderate before actually having an effect on anything?

 

[DotCommunist]

synergistic effects.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I had to do some research a few years back about them both and interestingly MLK became a lot more radical toward the end of his life than he's known for. He was a vocal opponent of the war and increasingly critical of the financial system...

 

[isitme]

I had to do some research a few years back about them both and interestingly MLK became a lot more radical toward the end of his life than he's known for. He was a vocal opponent of the war and increasingly critical of the financial system...

Wheras Malcolm got less and less radical

I was actually a bit sickened by the end of his 'autobiography' where he's saying how great it was to be a royal guest in Saudi Arabia and so on. young Malcolm would have been pissed off with the poverty everywhere while he was living in opulence, but he just goes on about how great it is to be a muslim

 

[Detroit City]

sorry isitme but i don't know much about this part of american history...i really should read up on it.

did you ever see the movie malcolm x? it was pretty much ignored by white america but its an excellent flick.

 

[isitme]

sorry isitme but i don't know much about this part of american history...i really should read up on it.

did you ever see the movie malcolm x? it was pretty much ignored by white america but its an excellent flick.

the denzel washington one?

it won about 3 oscars i think, i wouldn't say it was ignored lol

I watched it, I enjoyed it, but those biopics are usually a bit silly imo because they try and compress someone's entire life into an hour and a half and kind of leave everything half developed

 

[Detroit City]

the denzel washington one?

it won about 3 oscars i think, i wouldn't say it was ignored lol

although being a pretty good movie it didn't do well at the box office...the audience was mainly minorities.

 

[barney_pig]

Is this true do you think?

The young radical Nation of Islam Malcolm I mean

What I mean is that the only reason that Martin Luther King was allowed to become such a powerful figure was because of Malcolm X laying the groundwork with his militancy

?

allowed to become???

who is it that is allowing?

 

[isitme]

allowed to become???

who is it that is allowing?

the media, the people who would have attacked his rallies, the police and so on who didn't ban him

white america lol

 

[isitme]

although being a pretty good movie it didn't do well at the box office...the audience was mainly minorities.

It was pretty big over here. It wasn't massive, but then I would say that was cos it was more of a serious film

You can't expect a movie about Malcolm X to compete with a movie like Die Hard in terms of box office. I dunno if race has anything to do with that

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I have heard a credible argument (on Radio 4 ages ago by black WWII soldiers) that the Civil Rights movement gained a lot of momentum because of Black GIs who were posted in the UK during WWII and were able to drink and dance in non-segregated pubs etc, were invited to British homes etc and saw how different things could be.

Anyway, I think Martin Luther King would have been around with or without Malcolm X and it's very simplistic to attribute things to one other thing. As with everything in life there are many factors.

 

[exleper]

As I understand it, Malcolm X and MLK were really just the public figureheads of a much wider movement. I would probably credit the SNCC and CORE with doing the real work of changing civil rights in America. MLK was not much of a leader, in all reality, but he was an amazing speaker and as the public face made the cause more tenable to the general public. Malcolm X and the militant wing of the movement often did more harm than good but certainly made significant changes in the North, where the SCLC didn't have much effect.

At the end of the day people like history made by heroes, icons we can worship. The reality is there was more of a consolidated effort of thousands which made the real impact.

 

[isitme]

Anyway, I think Martin Luther King would have been around with or without Malcolm X and it's very simplistic to attribute things to one other thing. As with everything in life there are many factors.

It's undoubtable he would have been around and would have been somebody, but the question I was asking was wether he would be able to have become such a powerful figure in American history without the militants who went before him?

I'm hoping since its the philosophy forum that the debate can move on to the more fundamental point of the need for the likes of Malcolm who were serious militants and often racist to enable someone like MLK who made such a great effort to be balanced and moderate in the face of prejudice

 

[isitme]

As I understand it, Malcolm X and MLK were really just the public figureheads of a much wider movement. I would probably credit the SNCC and CORE with doing the real work of changing civil rights in America. MLK was not much of a leader, in all reality, but he was an amazing speaker and as the public face made the cause more tenable to the general public. Malcolm X and the militant wing of the movement often did more harm than good but certainly made significant changes in the North, where the SCLC didn't have much effect.

At the end of the day people like history made by heroes, icons we can worship. The reality is there was more of a consolidated effort of thousands which made the real impact.

no doubt

I was using them as metaphors lol.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

the question I was asking was wether he would be able to have become such a powerful figure in American history without the militants who went before him?

Yes, I think so, I didn't literally mean he would still have been around, I meant he would have been just as powerful.

 

[exleper]

It's undoubtable he would have been around and would have been somebody, but the question I was asking was wether he would be able to have become such a powerful figure in American history without the militants who went before him?

I'm hoping since its the philosophy forum that the debate can move on to the more fundamental point of the need for the likes of Malcolm who were serious militants and often racist to enable someone like MLK who made such a great effort to be balanced and moderate in the face of prejudice

The civil rights movement was most effective when violence was committed against their members - the Montgomery bus boycott, testing the voting rights act by having blacks registering to vote in the South. It got real results when the media - and so the general public - were made very aware of the prejudice from the violence of the racist Southern whites.

Once the media exposed this prejudice, the government was forced to act and enforce the constitution as they saw fit.

When the media reported on the militant actions of the Nation of Islam it was usually negative, and so in the eyes of the public - and therefore the govt - it would be heavily frowned upon. The general perception and real changes from that militancy, therefore, would ultimately be minimal, I would argue.

 

[isitme]

Yes, I think so, I didn't literally mean he would still have been around, I meant he would have been just as powerful.

I understand what you meant, we might be talking at cross purposes

Do you not think he would have been 'no platformed'

I mean, in that climate, Im inclined to think that a moderate civil rights person would be ignored at best.

Don't you think the fear of Nation of Islam and so on made someone like MLK more appealing on both sides of the argument because he was just saying that people should get along instead of proposing war.

I would imagine that Malcolm X and his rhetoric at the time scared the shit out of a lot of people, and that would make a moderate civil rights movement more appealing

 

[Mrs Magpie]

The outrage I remember most clearly from that time was when children were killed when a church in the south was bombed. That was big news here, probably worldwide too. I can't remember all the details, just the shock of adults around me as I was a child then. I remember stuff on the news often about Civil Rights.

 

[isitme]

The civil rights movement was most effective when violence was committed against their members - the Montgomery bus boycott, testing the voting rights act by having blacks registering to vote in the South. It got real results when the media - and so the general public - were made very aware of the prejudice from the violence of the racist Southern whites.

Once the media exposed this prejudice, the government was forced to act and enforce the constitution as they saw fit.

When the media reported on the militant actions of the Nation of Islam it was usually negative, and so in the eyes of the public - and therefore the govt - it would be heavily frowned upon. The general perception and real changes from that militancy, therefore, would ultimately be minimal, I would argue.

but those examples all depended on the ( mostly white) media actually reporting them

black guy gets hanged in the 50s for beating up a white guy, no media coverage

black power activists become militant in the 60s, big in the media albeit negative coverage

peaceful protests for civil rights in the 60s as an alternative to militancy, big in the media

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Don't you think the fear of Nation of Islam and so on made someone like MLK more appealing on both sides of the argument because he was just saying that people should get along instead of proposing war.

I don't think so, I have to go out now to a local project for a few hours to work.....I'll be back later. I'll dredge my memory meanwhile....I know that Cassius Clay, as he was then, and the Vietnam War was a big part in general consciousness about Civil Rights.

 

[Detroit City]

You can't expect a movie about Malcolm X to compete with a movie like Die Hard in terms of box office. I dunno if race has anything to do with that

Malcomn X is seen as a terrorist figure over here by white America. Add to that that he was Moslem and you have a double negative

 

[nino_savatte]

Of course one could say "No Paul Robeson = no civil rights movement". Well before MLK, Paul Robeson was standing up and being counted...then he got smeared by Hoover and McCarthy.

 

[exleper]

but those examples all depended on the ( mostly white) media actually reporting them

black guy gets hanged in the 50s for beating up a white guy, no media coverage

black power activists become militant in the 60s, big in the media albeit negative coverage

peaceful protests for civil rights in the 60s as an alternative to militancy, big in the media

OK, well, first of all, I think you've got your chronology slightly wrong. The Black power movement and more militant side came later, in the mid 60s. The initial movement sprung from the South in the mid 50s, with MLK leading the SCLC and helping co-ordinating various organisations. The militancy came as an alternative to King's nonviolence, not the other way round. Northern blacks living in the ghettos grew tired of King and felt he wasn't doing much for them - in the North racism took a very different form. In a way the difference was down to the geographical divide - the South was very religious and preached peace, whilst the Northern ghettos were forced into crime and gangs, out of which the Black Panthers among others came.

And yes, those examples depended on white media coverage, but my point was that that is the only way anything could change. Not a lot can be done if you only exist on the fringe - in order to upset the status quo you have to first appeal to the establishment's sensibilities. In the segragated society that the US was in the 50s/60s, you needed somebody like MLK to provide a white-friendly face of the cause. I think, in this case at least, the only way to get real change was through moderation in protest, rather than extremes.

 

[isitme]

OK, well, first of all, I think you've got your chronology slightly wrong. The Black power movement and more militant side came later, in the mid 60s. The initial movement sprung from the South in the mid 50s, with MLK leading the SCLC and helping co-ordinating various organisations. The militancy came as an alternative to King's nonviolence, not the other way round. Northern blacks living in the ghettos grew tired of King and felt he wasn't doing much for them - in the North racism took a very different form. In a way the difference was down to the geographical divide - the South was very religious and preached peace, whilst the Northern ghettos were forced into crime and gangs, out of which the Black Panthers among others came.

And yes, those examples depended on white media coverage, but my point was that that is the only way anything could change. Not a lot can be done if you only exist on the fringe - in order to upset the status quo you have to first appeal to the establishment's sensibilities. In the segragated society that the US was in the 50s/60s, you needed somebody like MLK to provide a white-friendly face of the cause. I think, in this case at least, the only way to get real change was through moderation in protest, rather than extremes.

hmmmm

my history isn't very good I admit, but despite the things that I had gotten wrong, I don't think it undermines my original assertion/question that the non violence movement would not have been nearly as effective without the militant end of things

it just seems like non-violence on it's own would not have been as effective as it was without the militancy?

and maybe (to go off onto a different subject lol) MLK providing a white friendly face was a bad thing since there are so many examples of America still being a racist country in so many ways, perhaps a real change would have happened rather than a 'white friendly' change if MLK hadn't become so powerful

 

[exleper]

Yeah, I think you're right. The only reason the militant wings appeared, perhaps the only reason any militant organisation appears, is because the moderate side was proving ineffective. The Black power movement was formed largely as a response to the ineffectiveness of the original nonviolent movement, which became a bit stagnant after the voting rights act was passed.

I think there's a lot to be said for militant action, I don't think you can change the world purely by pacifism, but I would say that the separatist message the Black power movement preached was not as effective, in real terms, as the nonviolent side, in achieving legislation, govt intervention and wide public support. But it certainly helped to mobilise the cause amongst black people, particularly in the north, and helped redefine race relations, build up a stronger black community, show a convincing leadership within that community, etc. Without them things might have been very different, yes.

With all these things you have to look at the bigger picture (I'm not saying you're not at all, just saying). I think no part is really greater than the sum of the whole, if you see what I mean.

 

[david dissadent]

I have heard a credible argument (on Radio 4 ages ago by black WWII soldiers) that the Civil Rights movement gained a lot of momentum because of Black GIs who were posted in the UK during WWII and were able to drink and dance in non-segregated pubs etc, were invited to British homes etc and saw how different things could be.

Anyway, I think Martin Luther King would have been around with or without Malcolm X and it's very simplistic to attribute things to one other thing. As with everything in life there are many factors.

The war also a major boost black's earning power as unions and the Roosivelt government stood up against traditional discrimination. This was partly altruism but also that black union leaders were able to make there voices heard.

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

Randolph emerged as one of the most visible spokesmen for African-American civil rights. In 1941, he, Bayard Rustin, and A. J. Muste proposed a march on Washington to protest racial discrimination in war industries and to propose the desegregation of the American Armed forces. The march was cancelled after President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, or the Fair Employment Act. Some militants felt betrayed by the cancellation because Roosevelt's pronouncement only pertained to banning discrimination within industries and not the armed forces, however the fair employment Act is generally perceived as a success for African American rights. An example of the success this act induced is in the Philadelphia Transit Strike of 1944 where the government backed African American workers against White labour. In 1947, Randolph,along with colleague Grant Reynolds, formed the Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Service, later renamed the League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience. President Harry S. Truman abolished racial segregation in the armed forces through Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948.

link

 

[isitme]

Yeah, I think you're right. The only reason the militant wings appeared, perhaps the only reason any militant organisation appears, is because the moderate side was proving ineffective. The Black power movement was formed largely as a response to the ineffectiveness of the original nonviolent movement, which became a bit stagnant after the voting rights act was passed.

I think there's a lot to be said for militant action, I don't think you can change the world purely by pacifism, but I would say that the separatist message the Black power movement preached was not as effective, in real terms, as the nonviolent side, in achieving legislation, govt intervention and wide public support. But it certainly helped to mobilise the cause amongst black people, particularly in the north, and helped redefine race relations, build up a stronger black community, show a convincing leadership within that community, etc. Without them things might have been very different, yes.

With all these things you have to look at the bigger picture (I'm not saying you're not at all, just saying). I think no part is really greater than the sum of the whole, if you see what I mean.

yeah. it's hard to deny that the seperatist bit was really stupid lol. it's like you get some overlap between nazis and extremist muslims, Im sure i remember reading about some nation of islam people discussing a way to divide the country up with some white power people so as to keep black americans in america just not have them mix with white americans

but i suppose as with the nonviolent side they just both lost their way a bit

like having a black president is an amazing achievment, but it doesnt stop the fact that 80% of the prisons in some places are black etc etc

 

[Laney]

I had to do some research a few years back about them both and interestingly MLK became a lot more radical toward the end of his life than he's known for. He was a vocal opponent of the war and increasingly critical of the financial system...

Hence the assassination, innit?

Many things about King are conveniently forgotten. He was not content with achieving legislative equality... he would have gone on and on criticising the establishment for as long as he was able. His shortcomings are forgotten too - the criticisms of the SCLC have basically been buried and are lost to history.

As to the OP... well, the government will always be forced to respond to a violent and massive social movement demanding justice. The standard process is for them to accomodate the non-violent counterpart; to adopt and institutionalise that message until it becomes a part of the state rhetoric.

However I believe America would have been forced to respond to King's non-violent tactics regardless of the militant wing of the movement. That progress was inevitable... it was probably sped up by Malcolm X.

 

[butchersapron]

There's an argument to be had here about the useful myth of the wholly peaceful civil rights movement wiping out the memory of grouip like Deacons for Defence and Robert F. Williams to the advantage of the current staus quo.

 

[isitme]

There's an argument to be had here about the useful myth of the wholly peaceful civil rights movement wiping out the memory of grouip like Deacons for Defence and Robert F. Williams to the advantage of the current staus quo.

I agree, that's what I was getting at

And then suddenly revolutionaries become portrayed as either psycopathic or toothless but loveable. like there was never a need for violence cos they should have just gone on marches

same old shit.....