Originally posted by pelepapa: Moby let me take it topic by topic.
1. What has prevented the minorities from seeing this?
-This is not the first or only thing they haven't seen.
- I was never a MLK fan. I am more of a Malcolm X fan, but if you asked me whose tactic have a better chance of creating "racial" change in the "USA" I would have to say MLK's, and that was proven, so I don't get the argument. I would never want to be the one to employ such a strategy though. To devise a strategy you need to understand what you are fighting for. If you are talking about overthrowing a government or defending against an invading force then I would definitely advocate force.
Pele P..why the insults... When you say "I think even you", are you being derogatory?
I also note your complex from a nationalistic standpoint...why is that? Can't you just engage without the insults and stuff. You want to respect Jcans, yet you fire your comments just the same. Or is it that you are giving as you get.
When you have Latino's and Blacks fighting...mission accomplished. What can I say?
_________________________ Life is a journey, not a destination
Originally posted by pelepapa: Don't laugh with him Shaggy. You no see he is about to be slap silly if he wishes to continue down this road. Not even your attempt to spice up his stupid comment will save him.
I will implore you to abandon this sinking ship while you can. The man is going under fast and he will only drag you down with him.
Yeh, you might start to kill me with logic.
Actually, I agree with a lot of what you say. I haven't yet felt the inclination to scrutinize what has been said, but I know I was not clear on exactly what Moby meant by "educated" black people (i.e. in what sense - book educated, politically and socially aware, or both), because a person whose education includes a social/political awareness component would likely view his advancement differently from one who does not have that awareness.
Also, I was not sure what "system" he was referring to, as he could be talking about the legal system put in place to address (to the extent it can) historical wrongs, the unwritten, yet instutionalized system which works to keep blacks where they are, etc. adda, yadda, etc.
I apologize for focusing on the trees in the forest, but it looks like the topic is taking a little detour anyway.
I do agree generally with Moby's sentiment regarding the effect the agent change has on the pace of change, but I wonder what significance he attaches to the potential tinderbox economic, political and social (racial) environment of the 1950-60's when discussing attempts to "accelerate" change by means other than those advocated by Dr. King.
Given than both you and moreso Moby are inclined to dismiss the effect of Dr. King's nonviolent confrontation strategy, I would ask what both you and Moby would advance as a more effective way of realizing the, as yet, unattained goal of real respect, equality and justice.
[This message has been edited by shaggybear (edited 02-13-2006).]
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Originally posted by mobydick: Pele P..why the insults... When you say "I think even you", are you being derogatory?
I also note your complex from a nationalistic standpoint...why is that? Can't you just engage without the insults and stuff. You want to respect Jcans, yet you fire your comments just the same. Or is it that you are giving as you get.
When you have Latino's and Blacks fighting...mission accomplished. What can I say?
No insults intended towards you Moby and I definitely was not trying to be derogatory. The "even you" comment is simply a way of saying it would be hard for you to disagree because the point I just made is obvious.
Complex from a nationalistic standpoint? I don't get it. My nationality was brought up, I was just responding to that post. Check how Xy think he is stepping to me in his first post. No need for nationalistic complex from my end.
Is the man you said I'm insulting trying to engage or is he just intent on insults. It seems like you are taking sides here, otherwise any objective person would see that's not a question that should be pose to me
That's just a warning to the man to stay away from the nationalistic foolishness and stick to the topic because it is senseless for him to go there.
Latino and blacks fighting? Me and Xy not fighting, the man just keep running into my fist.
Originally posted by shaggybear: Yeh, you might start to kill me with logic.
Actually, I agree with a lot of what you say. I haven't yet felt the inclination to scrutinize what has been said, but I know I was not clear on exactly what Moby meant by "educated" black people (i.e. in what sense - book educated, politically and socially aware, or both), because a person whose education includes a social/political awareness component would likely view his advancement differently from one who does not have that awareness.
Also, I was not sure what "system" he was referring to, as he could be talking about the legal system put in place to address (to the extent it can) historical wrongs, the unwritten, yet instutionalized system which works to keep blacks where they are, etc. adda, yadda, etc.
I apologize for focusing on the trees in the forest, but it looks like the topic is taking a little detour anyway.
I do agree generally with Moby's sentiment regarding the effect the agent change has on the pace of change, but I wonder what significance he attaches to the potential tinderbox economic, political and social (racial) environment of the 1950-60's when discussing attempts to "accelerate" change by means other than those advocated by Dr. King.
Given than both you and moreso Moby are inclined to dismiss the effect of Dr. King's nonviolent confrontation strategy, I would ask what both you and Moby would advance as a more effective way of realizing the, as yet, unattained goal of real respect, equality and justice.
[This message has been edited by shaggybear (edited 02-13-2006).]
Actually Shaggy I was trying to convey to Moby exactly what you just said. I know you said you didn't really scrutinized the posts, but if you did you wouldn't find a disagreement between you and I.
I never dismissed Dr. King nonviolent strategy for what he was trying to accomplish. I agreed that it was the best strategy. I even contrasted his movement with that employed by Mandela to show that MLK's was more effective.
That said I also said I wouldn't want to be the one to employ that strategy. That must have been hard to sell to his followers.
I think Moby is concentrating on what is a honorable way for one to defend themself, which is to hit back with force when you are hit. I wished we could have done that and be successful, but that would have been suicidal at that time.
Hispanic and intelligence are mutually exclusive, especially the Costa Rican version. Debating is futile because their brains are too small to grasp even elementary dialogue.
Originally posted by pelepapa: Actually Shaggy I was trying to convey to Moby exactly what you just said. I know you said you didn't really scrutinized the posts, but if you did you wouldn't find a disagreement between you and I.
I never dismissed Dr. King nonviolent strategy for what he was trying to accomplish. I agreed that it was the best strategy. I even contrasted his movement with that employed by Mandela to show that MLK's was more effective.
That said I also said I wouldn't want to be the one to employ that strategy. That must have been hard to sell to his followers.
I think Moby is concentrating on what is a honorable way for one to defend themself, which is to hit back with force when you are hit. I wished we could have done that and be successful, but that would have been suicidal at that time.
I hear you. Moby, is there a strategy that you think would have been more effective given the environment?
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Xy. I have been waiting to hear a dialogue from you. Go over your posts and see if you can identify a dialogue.
You little lab rat I guess you rejected my proposal to stick to the issues. If you intend on going there at least go back to the lab and come stronger than that.
You becoming the main subject in your own experimentation. you remind me of a drug dealer who end up snorting his own product.
Mi beg you. Stop running your face gainst mi fist dem, dem ah hurt me.
[This message has been edited by pelepapa (edited 02-14-2006).]
Originally posted by shaggybear: I hear you. Moby, is there a strategy that you think would have been more effective given the environment?
We have had successful revolutions in the past and I believe that the way to garner success follows a simple pattern. I believe that MLK's contribution to empower the Black race is farcical at best and that his symbolism only serves to reinforce the existing white economic/political/social domination.
Yes I advocate taking violence to the doors of the enemies..from physical to economic to whatever bloody means necessary. This is the chord that black americans need to embrace.
Lets not lose sight of the fact that we have had successful revolutions in the past. They have all followed the same basic template.
_________________________ Life is a journey, not a destination
Originally posted by pelepapa: I think Moby is concentrating on what is a honorable way for one to defend themself, which is to hit back with force when you are hit. I wished we could have done that and be successful, but that would have been suicidal at that time.
I am concentrating on the way necessary to ensure meaningful social change in my generation which will last as a legacy for not only my grand-children; since I can do that from my earning powers and consumption patterns, but for grand-children of the long oppressed (even the Hispanics)
[This message has been edited by mobydick (edited 02-14-2006).]
_________________________ Life is a journey, not a destination
Originally posted by shaggybear: I hear you. Moby, is there a strategy that you think would have been more effective given the environment?
We have had successful revolutions in the past and I believe that the way to garner success follows a simple pattern. I believe that MLK's contribution to empower the Black race is farcical at best and that his symbolism only serves to reinforce the existing white economic/political/social domination.
Yes I advocate taking violence to the doors of the enemies..from physical to economic to whatever bloody means necessary. This is the chord that black americans need to embrace.
Lets not lose sight of the fact that we have had successful revolutions in the past. They have all followed the same basic template.
O.k. What successful revolutions have we had in the past? Also, how would you prosecute this revolution?
Was there any leader of the period whom you thought had "the right idea?"
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Originally posted by mobydick: I am concentrating on the way necessary to ensure meaningful social change in my generation which will last as a legacy for not only my grand-children; since I can do that from my earning powers and consumption patterns, but for grand-children of the long oppressed (even the Hispanics)
[This message has been edited by mobydick (edited 02-14-2006).]
I suspect your long term planning would fall way short of its goals if you went up to the Whitehouse with a rifle.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Originally posted by shaggybear: O.k. What successful revolutions have we had in the past? Also, how would you prosecute this revolution?
Was there any leader of the period whom you thought had "the right idea?"
What is the anatomy of a modern revolution? Written by: sarahsarah(http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4924.php)
A revolution is a general and fundamental change in the political order when the mass of people rejects its government and the way things are run and is the result of failure to introduce gradual form. The people come together and there is a dramatic violent and forceful movement to change the way society is structured. A revolution itself is successful when one political, social and economic system has been replaced with an alternative that will bring about the necessary changes needed to remove the major sources of discontent and to improve life.
The first stage of a revolution is the development of a revolutionary situation. It is characterised by increasingly widespread opposition to the existing government, which has lost effective control of the nation. The people then try to attack their government; this attack sometimes involves strikes, assassinations, demonstrations and riots. The government usually responds to these acts with a refusal to grant reform.
From this, the accumulated anger inside the people explodes and the result is the overthrow of the old order. This always involves some form of military action in the capital, including taking over government buildings and occupying key transport and communication centres. There is not always only one group wanting to take power but a number of groups with quite different programs usually emerge.
When the new government has taken power, it usually introduces policies that are very different from those of the previous government. People are asked to make sacrifices in order to ensure the changes work out. The relationships between classes and groups in society are affected, and a new group seeking dominance for itself usually pushes down a previously dominant class. However, many problems inherited from the previous government limit the extent of its reform.
Next may be the most violent phase of the struggle - the consolidation of power. Loyalty to the new government is usually expected and demanded but allies of the old government may attempt to overthrow the new revolutionary government, to reinstate those who used to enjoy power and privilege and to restore the old order totally.
The new government and their new system is never a complete fulfilment of the new and better society it was intended to establish, because that one group gaining power means the defeat of all other possible alternatives. But the intolerable system and lifestyle of the past, instilled in the people’s minds the thought that any change is better than none. ***** Successful revolutions: French, American, Most European religious wars resulting in religious pluralism. MLK missed the boat.
_________________________ Life is a journey, not a destination
Registered: 02/13/04
Posts: 2995
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Offline
mobydick: a revolution can also be a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. If you use this version, then MLK was definitely a revolutionary. He was initially promoted by the popular press because they thought he was a safe "negro", when the establishment figured out he was a revolutionary....well, off with his head. The media still pushes the safe "negro" MLK...not the true revolutionary MLK.
Originally posted by TheDread: mobydick: a revolution can also be a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. If you use this version, then MLK was definitely a revolutionary. He was initially promoted by the popular press because they thought he was a safe "negro", when the establishment figured out he was a revolutionary....well, off with his head. The media still pushes the safe "negro" MLK...not the true revolutionary MLK.
You may be right.
So he pretended to be a safe negro in disguise? and when he revealed his true self he was killed by the establishment?
See link beloe plotting the civil rights movement...only for info purposes
Moby the revolution you talking about is based on a consensus by a cross section of a society rising up to overthrow a government. That is totally different than a particular group within a society fighting not just the government, but another group within that society for equal rights.
Moby you unintentionally demonstrated the difficulty for your tactic to succeed in the situation MLK found himself.
Take this forum to be the USA, me, a CRican, represent black people(a minority) and Xy represents white America of which you and the majority on the forum are members.
Xy (white people) came on the thread and even though unprovoked started calling names and throwing insults towards me (black people). I (black people) RESPONDED IN KIND, remember I was not the instigator. It is obvious that I was retaliating as you said you favored, yet you yourself (white society) did not see it that way. All you saw, base on your accussative questions toward me, is me insulting a fellow member of your society.
The right thing you should have done if you chose to do something was to call attention to Xy and point out to him that his name calling was unwarranted. Don't you think?
Now multiply that simple example a million times based on the opinion forming publicity machine at the USA's disposal and where does that leave us if we elect to fight fire with fire?
Originally posted by shaggybear: O.k. What successful revolutions have we had in the past? Also, how would you prosecute this revolution?
Was there any leader of the period whom you thought had "the right idea?"
What is the anatomy of a modern revolution? Written by: sarahsarah(http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4924.php)
A revolution is a general and fundamental change in the political order when the mass of people rejects its government and the way things are run and is the result of failure to introduce gradual form. The people come together and there is a dramatic violent and forceful movement to change the way society is structured. A revolution itself is successful when one political, social and economic system has been replaced with an alternative that will bring about the necessary changes needed to remove the major sources of discontent and to improve life.
The first stage of a revolution is the development of a revolutionary situation. It is characterised by increasingly widespread opposition to the existing government, which has lost effective control of the nation. The people then try to attack their government; this attack sometimes involves strikes, assassinations, demonstrations and riots. The government usually responds to these acts with a refusal to grant reform.
From this, the accumulated anger inside the people explodes and the result is the overthrow of the old order. This always involves some form of military action in the capital, including taking over government buildings and occupying key transport and communication centres. There is not always only one group wanting to take power but a number of groups with quite different programs usually emerge.
When the new government has taken power, it usually introduces policies that are very different from those of the previous government. People are asked to make sacrifices in order to ensure the changes work out. The relationships between classes and groups in society are affected, and a new group seeking dominance for itself usually pushes down a previously dominant class. However, many problems inherited from the previous government limit the extent of its reform.
Next may be the most violent phase of the struggle - the consolidation of power. Loyalty to the new government is usually expected and demanded but allies of the old government may attempt to overthrow the new revolutionary government, to reinstate those who used to enjoy power and privilege and to restore the old order totally.
The new government and their new system is never a complete fulfilment of the new and better society it was intended to establish, because that one group gaining power means the defeat of all other possible alternatives. But the intolerable system and lifestyle of the past, instilled in the people’s minds the thought that any change is better than none. ***** Successful revolutions: French, American, Most European religious wars resulting in religious pluralism. MLK missed the boat.
Is this your opinion Moby? Is there any part of her revolution to which you do not subscribe?
If you adopt it in its entirety, what is the correlation between the black population of 1950-60's USA and the "masses" referred to in the article?
I'm actually surprised you posted that article rather than coming direct in your own words. It doesn't sound like your style.
I'm not sure I believe you really think that 1950's and 60's Black America was in a position to conduct assassinations, demonstrations and riots, take over government buildings and occupy key transport and communication centres so as to overthrow the then existing order.
As for the examples of past revolutions, I don't see the relation to the subject, so maybe you could connect the dots. I would probably see a more faire comparison with the people that supposedly came over on the Mayflower.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Pelepapa and Shaggy Also, how would you prosecute this revolution?[/QUOTE]
I would prosecute under criminal law. His legacy and actions both demonstrate actus reus and mens rea. In my opinion his legacy is definitely a wrongful deed as defined by the laws of nature. Black Americans are as divided as ever. His method was beyond recklessness in terms of not anticipating outcome of said legacy.
Your honor I respectful submit that MLK have had the foresight to recognize that his method was doomed for failure and that the token success that is his legacy, has laid the foundation for that which reinforced the structure of an unjust and bias system. His legacy is that the few minorities that succeed has very little sympathy for the majority of those who fail because of that very same system.
I submit that MLK and his gang should have been a student of history to the point where he mapped out the failures and successes of other movements and not blindly fall into the obvious trap of being a house slave? I submit that he should have tapped into the mood of the country (the period that was Vietnam and the Commie years) in a more militant manner…by any means necessary
I suspect your long term planning would fall way short of its goals if you went up to the Whitehouse with a rifle.[/QUOTE]
Agreed…so the timing of my visit becomes crucial!!!
Moby the revolution you talking about is based on a consensus by a cross section of a society rising up to overthrow a government. That is totally different than a particular group within a society fighting not just the government, but another group within that society for equal rights.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Too often we take a realized end product and project it as being the initial intent. You make it appear as if the blacks were the only downtrodden. A civil movement seeks equality for all, so why not create a merger with all those who were oppressed. Sell a message that would get a wider consensus and shake the establishment to the very core by violent means. The Nation of Islam/Black panther/Black power was around.
The reason why the ANC failed was that it had no support from within the elite, unlike the civil movement that had support of whites, women etc.
But I know why you buy into that lie. Take your American text: “History of a Free Nation, Bragdon, McCuthchen and Ritchie”Ch 32 A new beginning …The introduction goes ‘…the battle to obtain equal rights for African Americans would have to be fought in the courts, in the news media, and in the consciences of the American people. For the civil rights movement, the 1950s marked a new beginning in the ongoing struggle for equality. Now take the term ‘would have to be fought’ in the context in which it is written…what does that say to you?
Take this …example a million times based on the opinion forming publicity machine at the USA's disposal and where does that leave us if we elect to fight fire with fire.[/QUOTE]
Why do you believe that you are incapable of exercising greater duplicity than that of your enemy? Why do you reduce human responses to indoctrination? I guess as a race, one is incapable of making a rationale decision outside that race? So I guess the approach of the use of the gift of gab is the response to years of oppression. MLk said ‘Injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured’. Do you agree with this? NO TIMELINE, NO OR ELSE? Yea I know he was constrained by the love your enemy approach of the new testament, but what about the old testament?
Take the words of Malcolm X”…I,m not for wanton violence, I,m for justice…I feel that when the law fails to protect [African Americans] from whites’ attacks, then those [African Americans] should use arms, if necessary to defend themselves…” History has shown that this approach has speeded up the pace of change and has had better results.
Is this your opinion Moby? Is there any part of her revolution to which you do not subscribe?[/QUOTE]
I believe that her ideas are useful in the context of an argument such as this.
If you adopt it in its entirety, what is the correlation between the black population of 1950-60's USA and the "masses" referred to in the article?[/QUOTE]
My position is this Shaggy. The oppressor knows of his evil. He firmly reflects the ideas of Hobbes about human nature and his restless desire for power. The oppressor seeks to remain more cunning than the oppressed and gives as little as he is forced to give. The onus is on the oppressed to outwit his oppressor. MLK failed to create conditions where the government lost effective control of the nation. And he could have.
Of note is the fact that Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 by championing the civil rights movement. However he took his time in getting anything done. I see no records of a critique by MLK about this administration. It actually took Kennedy 2 yrs to sign an executive order ending segregation in government owned housing. What is also interesting is that the support of the president only came into full force in 1963 after the Birmingham violence. He had to send 3000 troops to restore order and in only two months after he proposed a bill to outlaw segregation throughout the nation. So I guess violence does have a place.
I'm actually surprised you posted that article rather than coming direct in your own words. It doesn't sound like your style.[/QUOTE]
You are right...nonetheless it had the desired effect.
I'm not sure I believe you really think that 1950's and 60's Black America was in a position to conduct assassinations, demonstrations and riots, take over government buildings and occupy key transport and communication centres so as to overthrow the then existing order.[/QUOTE]
I do believe that with a militant stance…with white America believing that they were the enemies of black Americans and a lot to fear would have negated the need to take over government buildings etc. America’s God is capitalism…burn down a few factories, bomb a few ports, destroy a few rail-lines and I honestly believe that more would have been achieved at a faster pace.
As for the examples of past revolutions, I don't see the relation to the subject, so maybe you could connect the dots. I would probably see a more faire comparison with the people that supposedly came over on the Mayflower.[/QUOTE]
The dots lie in the study of history and the best ways to effect social change as well as the pitfalls in the process attempted. By this we should all be guided so as to not repeat mistakes of the past.
_________________________ Life is a journey, not a destination
Originally posted by mobydick: Pelepapa and Shaggy [b]Also, how would you prosecute this revolution?
I would prosecute under criminal law. His legacy and actions both demonstrate actus reus and mens rea. In my opinion his legacy is definitely a wrongful deed as defined by the laws of nature. Black Americans are as divided as ever. His method was beyond recklessness in terms of not anticipating outcome of said legacy. ---------------------------------------------
I don't think the struggle for equal rights equates to black people being united. You keep trying to equate the two and I don't see how. --------------------------------------------- Your honor I respectful submit that MLK have had the foresight to recognize that his method was doomed for failure and that the token success that is his legacy, has laid the foundation for that which reinforced the structure of an unjust and bias system. His legacy is that the few minorities that succeed has very little sympathy for the majority of those who fail because of that very same system. ---------------------------------------------
I have a better one for you, the struggle was for equality and access, yet those who gain access through their studies and determination are called derogatory names by those less successful. Isn't the trick to get more blacks educated and better access? Shouldn't those less successful look upon the few successess with pride and support as evidence instead of with derision? Look at any black movie, the educated successful brother is potrayed as the nerd, the misfit in society uncomfortable with his blackness, while the street goof off thug is the cool, hip, womanizer who is in tune with his blackness. Contrast that with a white movieMoby the revolution you talking about is based on a consensus by a cross section of a society rising up to overthrow a government. That is totally different than a particular group within a society fighting not just the government, but another group within that society for equal rights.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Too often we take a realized end product and project it as being the initial intent. You make it appear as if the blacks were the only downtrodden. A civil movement seeks equality for all, so why not create a merger with all those who were oppressed. Sell a message that would get a wider consensus and shake the establishment to the very core by violent means. The Nation of Islam/Black panther/Black power was around. ---------------------------------------------
What you fail to realize is that it was those other downtrodden groups that were more virulent against us gaining equality, it wasn't the elites. Remember it's their jobs we are going to threaten, it's their neighborhood we are going to live in and it's their schools we are going to bomb. Like I said, totally different animal. -----------------------------------------
The reason why the ANC failed was that it had no support from within the elite, unlike the civil movement that had support of whites, women etc. ---------------------------------------------
Talking about judging base on end results. Why you think the civil rights had the support of whites and women and the ANC didn't? Could it be the method employed by each? I think if we had bombed and destroyed it would've been these same white people and women who would have been affected and I don't think we would've had much support or sympathy from them. ------------------------------------------- Take this …example a million times based on the opinion forming publicity machine at the USA's disposal and where does that leave us if we elect to fight fire with fire.[/QUOTE]
Why do you believe that you are incapable of exercising greater duplicity than that of your enemy? Why do you reduce human responses to indoctrination? I guess as a race, one is incapable of making a rationale decision outside that race? So I guess the approach of the use of the gift of gab is the response to years of oppression. MLk said ‘Injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured’. Do you agree with this? NO TIMELINE, NO OR ELSE? Yea I know he was constrained by the love your enemy approach of the new testament, but what about the old testament? ---------------------------------------------
If we are to discuss a serious topic then lets do so, no one is loving their enemy. The objective is which tactic would best achieve success. I would be on board with you to bomb if that tactic had a chance to be successful. If both tactics had an equal chance of success I would have chosen yours also.
You are an intelligent man, if me mentioning Ja made you incapable of placing blame in the right place what make you think a white person in the deep south whose house, job, and church you just destroyed and who is been told all his life that your freedom is his destruction is going to be more enlightened than you. ---------------------------------------------
Take the words of Malcolm X”…I,m not for wanton violence, I,m for justice…I feel that when the law fails to protect [African Americans] from whites’ attacks, then those [African Americans] should use arms, if necessary to defend themselves ---------------------------------------------
You don't like words yet you want us to listen to words. Show us deeds and successes, that's what we are talking about. --------------------------------------------- Of note is the fact that Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 by championing the civil rights movement. ---------------------------------------------
Kennedy championing the civil rights? I never understood why black people had his picture hanging in their homes. Kennedy won because his father bought the election. If he did used the Civil Rights Movement it was the nonviolent aspect that enticed him. If we were blowing up buildings his support would be akin to a politician supporting Bin Laden today. --------------------------------------------- However he took his time in getting anything done. I see no records of a critique by MLK about this administration. It actually took Kennedy 2 yrs to sign an executive order ending segregation in government owned housing. What is also interesting is that the support of the president only came into full force in 1963 after the Birmingham violence. He had to send 3000 troops to restore order and in only two months after he proposed a bill to outlaw segregation throughout the nation. So I guess violence does have a place. ---------------------------------------------
That's what I'm trying to tell you, but you have it backwards. It was the sight on TV, which was broadcasting around the world, of peaceful marchers been violently restrained by the police and white folks that mobilized JFK. It wasn't black folks been violent as your post suggest. --------------------------------------------- I do believe that with a militant stance…with white America believing that they were the enemies of black Americans and a lot to fear would have negated the need to take over government buildings etc. America’s God is capitalism…burn down a few factories, bomb a few ports, destroy a few rail-lines and I honestly believe that more would have been achieved at a faster pace. -------------------------------------------- Malcolm X, the black panther, the nation of islam all of them moved towards a more peaceful resistance stance, Why you think that is? Imaging what could have been accomplished if the great leaders of these organization had joined forces with MLK and his movement instead of dividing the black community.
