Martin Luther King Jnr. - That great?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

No doubt about it, Martin Luther King was a legendary freedom fighter....but were his achievements that great?

We hear about King, we learn about him in school and he is the leader of blacks in America. However I believe that Malcolm X is a more significant figure.

I know I am stealing opinion from Malcolm, but it is true;
- Martin Luther King basically just organised thousands of African-American's to get down on their knees and beg for their civil rights which are rightfully theirs.

The point is....what action was REALLY taken?

I'm not saying non-violence isn't affective. Gandhi's non-violent struggle in India was the greatest revolution ever and was successful. But his was "peacfeul non-conformity". Martin Luther King's non-violence, however, was "passive resistence". Gandhi actually rebelled, King just protested. No direct action was taken. And did King achieve as much as we are led to believe??

So, he got blacks the right to sit at the front of the bus. Got them the right to eat in cafe's. Share toilets. But did they get a better life? I think the answer is no. Blacks in America today are still subjected to blatant racism; thrown in ghetto's, with no life chances. To me, Malcolm X was a real leader for the blacks. Apart from his "the white man is Satan" belief, he was a real activist. And we must remember, one thing a lot dont remember, after going to Mecca, Malcolm didnt hate whites, he wanted equality. But was still an activist. Rather than just a protester.

Just something to think about. Was Martin Luther King that great?

[Umoja]

MLK, would have accomplished more, but his life WAS cut short when he was at a major turning point. The government had it in for him, especially when he began to show a dis-taste for American policy. This isn't commonly mentioned, because MLK is painted by most factions as a "house negro".

In the larger scheme of things, he also accomplished much more then Malcolm X did, the Bus Boycotts were something most other organizations would wish they could emulate. So, although many people view nonviolent struggle as crippling, it seems to have proven many important things.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yeh. I agree about his life being cut short. Very much so. Who knows what he couldve done.

[bluerev002]

Any man is great who is the first to jump up against injustices. of course, you are right, he did go down on his knees and beg for the rights that are naturally theirs. but in the world were blacks were thought of as savages from Africa, i dont think a riot would have helped their image. a lot has changed, yet again, not enough. In the opinion of the African/Americans that were alive back then to be by King's side, King was the greatest, those who fought w/ X, X was the greates.

Is he that great? no, none of these activist are that great, they just did what SHOULD have been done by anyone a long time ago.

I doubt that my post helped your thread much, but hey, it is an opinion, rather than a correct answer that you are gonna get.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 12:25 am on Feb. 4, 2003
No doubt about it, Martin Luther King was a legendary freedom fighter....but were his achievements that great?

We hear about King, we learn about him in school and he is the leader of blacks in America. However I believe that Malcolm X is a more significant figure.

I know I am stealing opinion from Malcolm, but it is true;
- Martin Luther King basically just organised thousands of African-American's to get down on their knees and beg for their civil rights which are rightfully theirs.

The point is....what action was REALLY taken?

I'm not saying non-violence isn't affective. Gandhi's non-violent struggle in India was the greatest revolution ever and was successful. But his was "peacfeul non-conformity". Martin Luther King's non-violence, however, was "passive resistence". Gandhi actually rebelled, King just protested. No direct action was taken. And did King achieve as much as we are led to believe??

So, he got blacks the right to sit at the front of the bus. Got them the right to eat in cafe's. Share toilets. But did they get a better life? I think the answer is no. Blacks in America today are still subjected to blatant racism; thrown in ghetto's, with no life chances. To me, Malcolm X was a real leader for the blacks. Apart from his "the white man is Satan" belief, he was a real activist. And we must remember, one thing a lot dont remember, after going to Mecca, Malcolm didnt hate whites, he wanted equality. But was still an activist. Rather than just a protester.

Just something to think about. Was Martin Luther King that great?

have you been watching barber shop lately??

(Edited by man in the red suit at 2:37 am on Feb. 13, 2003)

[pay feo 2003]

very interesting...

actually, plainly stated my answer is this..."his involvement in the labor movement is what put him at great risk" why? ah, it's just a drunk huntch.

unfortunately, i have a problem with the entire era you have mentioned. one reason being is im suspect. the second reason being, im suspect. heehee.

the statement mentioned on Ghandi has me curious, and maybe you can help. i was reading a book on Che the other day and i came accross this quote by him...

regarding India: "new and complex protocols which make me panic just like a child...one of my lieutenants has come up with a standard reply for everything. it's something like "joinch-joinch" and it works beautifully."

Guevara, also known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II

i believe the above mention is in regards to his visit in India where he met with diplomats Nehru and Indira Gandhi (?) same guy (?)

anyway, the point i am trying to state here is that Che was interested in doing anything he felt would be useful to the Cuban revolution, so i am not sure what the implications are here, only my thought is, and you mentioned it briefly, was Gahndi's style (which i am not yet studied).

i know i sound scattered and make little sense, only believe this...it eventually comes full circle.

interestingly enough, my drunk huntches tell me that all was not as it seems here in the grand ole united states, so my question is now this.

July 2 1964, President (haha) Johnson signs into law a sweeping civil rights bill passed by congress. Did Dr Martin Luther King have anything to do with this particular law coming into effect?

i will stop for now, im spinning and its disco time!

[pay feo 2003]

oh, i can understand why the opposition against the u.s. states for being a "welfare" state. seems the courts need to be more concerned with exhaulting the poor as a priority and not "affirmative action" coming in at the top of the charts.

im glad to see the dream of Dr Martin which we perceive as the white and the black walking together. me and my kids pick out his dream when we see it on the streets, yeah, its cool. only thats not the most important issue. so i think it was the labor issues that did it. I love the man, only i don't have a full understanding of him just yet.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

have you been watching barber shop lately??

(Edited by man in the red suit at 2:37 am on Feb. 13, 2003)

I dont get it?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Pay Feo..

Not quite sure what u were saying with that quote!

And Indira Gandhi isnt THE Gandhi. Mohandas Gandhi was the freedom fighter for British India...trying to get home rule for India. Indira was a future prime minister of independant India. Im unsure as to why she has the same surname altho I have read it before. It is linked to Mohandas in some way.

I suggest you read about Gandhi. His was the greatest revolution ever.

And your question about whether DrKing was anything to do with the legislation passed by Johnson. Indirectly, yes. He started all the fuss amongst blacks about wanting their rights. And he made it apparent to the nation that they wanted it.

[Hampton]

Yes, he was that great.

[pay feo 2003]

S and M

thank you so very much. i have more thoughts on the issue. thank you.

you are aware of his involvement with labor issues, no?

thanks again

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I may be aware of them by a different name or description. Im not completely sure what you mean.....explain

[OskarYeager]

I used to think Martin Luther King was great, but when I read this book that is called "Burden of Brown", it TOTALLY changed my perspective...

I now believe that the core of MLK's belief, that integration of the black and white race in america would be beneficial to both, IS WRONG...

THis book, done by a historian named Ramond Wolters (U of Deleware) proved beyond the shadow of a doubt with compelling statistics that forced integration (and I mean that literally, it was forced down the thorats of the south) was bad for both the blacks and the whites involved. Wolters' statistics generally are student performance tests of virtually every kind. The basic results were; whenever integration occurred in an all-white school, white performance PLUMMETED while black performance dropped slightly as well... You don't have to really take my word for it, I encourage all communists here to read the book and see for yourselves. It really changed my opinion...

These statistics reveal why whites were so eager to get out of "integrated" districts in the inner cities and move to the suburbs... Which is probably why so many people here who happen to be white americans are suburbanites...

And if you think that's racist... Think about this:

Imagine that you are a black person, with a black family... and you are told that the only way your children are to succeed is for them to go to a predominantly white school... How would you feel about that? That is nothing but white supremacy, IMO...

Aside from that, lets take a look at MLK the man, he certainly wasen't as great as the media portrayed him. Actually the FBI has tapes of him the night before he was assasinated with three prostitutes! He had sex with two of them, and BEAT, that's right, BEAT the other one... How's that for non-violent? LOL...

If anyone is wondering, I prefer Malcom X anyday to MLK. He is certainly more anti-government and anti-establishment

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You have read one book, and gathered your full conclusion from that. You really should read more than one book you know.

And you said Malcolm was better because he was "anti" this and "anti" that......Thats such a shit argument. There are too many people like you. Too "anti" everything that you forget to be "pro" anything. That's what Malcolm realised in the end. And saw that coexistence is the way.

[OskarYeager]

You only know half of the story, muerte. I just used the Wolters book as an example; but the Wolters book told me what my base instinct already told me to be true. There are very very many scientific articles and books that were published about race before it became "politically incorrect" to talk openly about such things. TO go over scientific differences of race would be redundent, not to mention off of the topic. I don't know why I bother to stay on topic, however, seeing how you so easily go off on a tangent.
In any case; no, if you were wondering I didn't just read one book, but the Wolters piece was quite a good case-by-case introduction portraying the destructive nature of forced integration, as a direct result of King's agitation.
Muerte, I strongly suggest you stop swearing at me if you want to debate, seriously... Secondly, if you want to toss accusations at me, try debating THE CENTER of my point instead of biting my heels like a little toy dog. I really don't care that much about Malcom X personally, I didn't say he was "better", just that I would prefer his ideas to King's baseless "feel good" rhetoric.

and finally, just for the sake of addressing every claim you make... I have a "pro" stance on many things... None of which have to do with MLK or his ideas. How you get such ideas that I am "anti" everything, I really don't know... But if you want to debate the destruction of the fabric of American life left in MLK's wake, I'd be glad to oblige.

[OskarYeager]

And finally, to answer your first question; no. MLK was not great, seeing that he was a woman-beater, his "non-violent" stance is grossly hypocritical. His policies were absolutely destructive to America's inner cities, and greatly accelerated urban flight; and finally, blacks aren't any better off as far as education and economic opportunity go. Furthermore, anywhere blacks were made marginally "better" off, Johnson's pro-MLK programs were always to the detriment of whites.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

There's actually no point debating...we have the same view!

Blacks today are still subjected to one of the worst and most blatant forms of racism in the world..whatever he did do wasn't much

[Umoja]

The hero of Blacks was Ghandi, I mean look at him on Clone High, he looks like Spike Lee (and by extension me)! Seriously though, I have to agree that forced integration is bad, which leads me back further in history to still fret over the DuBois or Garvey viewpoint....

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Correction....the hero of HUMANITY was Gandhi.

[OskarYeager]

I remember when my mom went to India and brought back pictures... All I can say is; jeezus... I don't know, Ghandi did manage to wrestle India from control of the British... but then again the only cars that are driven around there look like the aincient British Vauxhall's from the 50s!
Sometimes I wonder if pacifism really did much good for the Indians after independence, honestly. Sorry for goin' off topic here, just that somebody mentioned Gandhi so I thought I'd toss in what I've experienced.
harharhar