The purpose of Black History Month is to shine a light on the accomplishments and struggles faced by Black Americans.
Most of the focus is put on Black Americans who have played a crucial role in this country, such as George Washington Carver, Rosa Parks, W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King Jr., to name a few.
While most of the focus is on these individuals, a smaller spotlight is saved for those whose views were different. For example: Malcolm X.
As important as King was to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Malcolm X was just as important, if not more so.
Though King and Malcolm X had the same goal, to get fair and equal treatment for Black Americans, their approaches were very different.
King was greatly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi. This is apparent in King’s approach, which centered on nonviolent civil disobedience. Evidence of this can be seen in many of King’s quotes, such as,
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that” and “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.”
King encouraged his followers to “turn the other cheek” and not to retaliate if they were attacked.
Malcolm X’s approach was a lot more confrontational than that of King.
Malcolm X’s encouraged Black Americans to stand up for their rights and to defend themselves if they were to be attacked. This can be seen in some of his quotes.
“Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone, but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery” and “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.”
When I think of the relationship between King and Malcolm X, I view the relationship as being complementary.
A key part to the success of King is that he was able to bring whites and blacks together.
With that being said, we must ponder how successful King’s message would have been if it were not for Malcolm X. Malcolm X, and others, such as the Black Panthers, went about a very different approach.
They were simply tired of discrimination. They were tired of living in constant fear. They were ready to do whatever they needed to do to protect themselves.
Go ahead and think about it for a bit.
As a white in the ’60s, there must have been some fear. One group preaching peace while their brothers and sisters get beaten in the streets, and another group preaching, “kill whitey.”
They both have the same goal: equal treatment.
While one group’s leader focused on philosophy and working with white America to gain acceptance and equal rights, the other group being lead by a leader whose philosophy focused on years of anger towards white America.
With conditions getting worse it is easy to think and see that the more radical group gained support.
“I have a dream that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
And then leftists adamantly defend affirmative action and brand anyone a racist who says being “color blind” is the most moral stance.
Careful, your white privilege is showing…
You say nothing to counter my point and instead focus on the speaker’s skin color.
THAT is racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrxZRuL65wQ
No, the fact that you think that people are treated equally in this country or that people can actually be “color blind” regarding race is ignorance at its finest.
There is a plethora of research, including empirical research, that demonstrates that simply being white gives you an advantage. A prime example would be the resume experiments. What the researchers do is submit resumes with names associated with Whites and names associated with Blacks, but with identical qualifications. You would think that since the qualifications are identical that each resume would get the same number of callbacks, but you would be wrong. The resume with the name associated with Whites receives significantly more call backs.
The fact that you believe this is not something that occurs is an example of white privilege. You’re not to blame for the existence of white privilege, but there is no one to blame for your unwillingness to accept reality, but yourself.
Furthermore, white privilege doesn’t mean white people do not work hard. It means that all things being equal with the exception of race, members of a minority group have to work harder than their White counterparts.
Having a “black name” doesn’t account for the individual behavior that people voluntarily do to themselves, such as high drop out rates and high single parenthood rates.
I don’t deny the existence of of racism. I reject the claim that every disadvantage that minorities face is automatically the result of racism, instead of the myriad of other factors.
I also reject that since some people do treat minorities poorly, the moral obligation then falls on other people to treat minorities higher in order for the effects to cancel out (or at least be reduced). That was my point. I said that being “color blind” is more moral than treating people differently, and that it was stupid how leftists like to label being color blind, even in theory, as racist.
I also think it’s ridiculous how leftists like to throw out the term “white privilege” in order to dodge criticism, like what you just did.
My original draft explained my opinion better than the draft that was printed.
My general point is that Malcolm X and others who were willing to fight back were a key part of MLKs popularity.
One of the parts left out of the final drafts was:
“Go ahead and think about it for a bit. If you were a White person in the 1960’s, a time where minorities were treated worse than they are today, and there were two groups with the same goal of getting Black Americans equal rights as White Americans, one group was led by a man and a philosophy that promoted peace and working with White Americans to gain equal rights and another group whose leaders and philosophy centered around centuries of abuse and anger towards White Americans, who could be heard chanting “Kill Whitey!!” which was gaining more and more support as the conditions of Black Americans was getting worse, what would you do?
Would you support the group promoting peace and cooperation or the group chanting “Kill Whitey?”
Chances are most would choose to support the group that does not want to “kill Whitey.””
Hope that answers your question.
Alen
It’s one thing to not agree with someone. It’s another thing to oppress and discriminate against people.
You don’t like homosexuals? Fine, that’s your opinion. However, discriminating against a person because they are homosexual is not fine, especially regarding civil rights and liberties.
For example, I don’t agree with the people who have racists ideologies. However, I don’t think they should be treated differently regarding civil rights and liberties. As well as with your case, I don’t agree with your view on homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean people should be sending you death threats.
I took a stand against such behavior when the owners of a pizzeria should they would not cater a gay wedding. These so called “liberals” were sending them such hateful messages. One in particular that stood out to me was something along these lines “we should go gang rape her while burning down her restaurant.” That stuff is not okay.
J, whether you view homosexuality as a sin or not, that should not impact your views on what rights they should have. Just because their sexual orientation is not “normal,” does not mean that they are any less human than the rest of us or that they do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
“we should go gang rape her while burning down her restaurant.” That stuff is not okay.
there is no difference between that and sending men with guns (ie, the government) to shut down a store and fine the owners into the ground simple for wanting to be left alone
Do you oppose anti-discrimination laws
or do you want to impose your own personal morality on other people