Originally posted by Robtard
People are mixing his anger/rage (which is justifiable) and his racism.He preached (as per early NOI doctrine) that white-people were inferior; blacks were the original and genetically superior race. This is retarded and shouldn't be excused.
Were you in his position? I don't agree(edit that whites are inferior) but its all nice in theory.
Originally posted by Deadlinewhat? trying to make light of the situation?
O god I hoped this wouldn't happen. facepalm
i think a lot of what Malcom X said was racist and out of anger. i dont blame him nor judge him due to the world he lived in. it was justifiable his opinion of race superiority is his and i dont care, its a person's opinion which is subjective. i learned to ignore and at times respect such opinions.
Originally posted by Robtard
People are mixing his anger/rage (which is justifiable) and his racism.He preached (as per early NOI doctrine) that white-people were inferior; blacks were the original and genetically superior race. This is retarded and shouldn't be excused.
its not a really easy distinction to make. his philosophies from the NOI informed a lot of his more valid criticisms of white institutions.
I do agree it is a "baby-in-the-bathwater" situation
Originally posted by Robtard
People are mixing his anger/rage (which is justifiable) and his racism.He preached (as per early NOI doctrine) that white-people were inferior; blacks were the original and genetically superior race. This is retarded and shouldn't be excused.
There are reasons why someone would follow such ideas though. That's the whole point.
Originally posted by Robtard
Um, no. I can judge a ridiculous claim, just as you did by not agreeing with it too, genius.
Thats not the point.
Originally posted by King Castle
what? trying to make light of the situation?i think a lot of what Malcom X said was racist and out of anger. i dont blame him nor judge him due to the world he lived in. it was justifiable his opinion of race superiority is his and i dont care, its a person's opinion which is subjective. i learned to ignore and at times respect such opinions.
Its ok I'm kinda messing with you.
Originally posted by inimalist
its not a really easy distinction to make. his philosophies from the NOI informed a lot of his more valid criticisms of white institutions.I do agree it is a "baby-in-the-bathwater" situation
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are reasons why someone would follow such ideas though. That's the whole point.
Have you read the early NOI doctrines on white-people? Being created by an evil black scientist eons ago to punish the pure black-race etc.
It's absurd at it's best, hate the white-man all you like for going through Jim Crow and whatnot, but preaching and believing nonsense is just that.
Originally posted by Robtard
Have you read the early NOI doctrines on white-people? Being created by an evil black scientist eons ago to punish the pure black-race etc.It's absurd at it's best, hate the white-man all you like for going through Jim Crow and whatnot, but preaching and believing nonsense is just that.
my point is more that you can't look at his "anger" and his "racism" as two separate things, I'm not trying to say that his legitimate statements about oppression make his racism any more true
Originally posted by inimalist
my point is more that you can't look at his "anger" and his "racism" as two separate things, I'm not trying to say that his legitimate statements about oppression make his racism any more true
And my point was that his racism shouldn't be excused, despite his suffering due to oppression.
Originally posted by Robtard
And my point was that his racism shouldn't be excused, despite his suffering due to oppression.
no, but it certainly shouldn't be simply dismissed as "racial untruth". Understanding the position of militant blacks depends on understanding their hatred, the same would be true for anyone looking into what drove the KKK
maybe we are arguing different points. I never said he wasn't racist, but more was arguing that his racism was a byproduct of a very racialized time, and in some sense appropriate to the position he took. Obviously it is something he should be criticized for, but there is more to it than "X is/isn't a racist"
like, obviously the better path is the one MLK took
Originally posted by Robtard
Have you read the early NOI doctrines on white-people? Being created by an evil black scientist eons ago to punish the pure black-race etc.It's absurd at it's best, hate the white-man all you like for going through Jim Crow and whatnot, but preaching and believing nonsense is just that.
And no one is denying that...all people are saying is that circumstances matter and that it is understandable to have ones judgement clouded by anger (justified anger in this case perhaps)
Originally posted by inimalist
no, but it certainly shouldn't be simply dismissed as "racial untruth". Understanding the position of militant blacks depends on understanding their hatred, the same would be true for anyone looking into what drove the KKKmaybe we are arguing different points. I never said he wasn't racist, but more was arguing that his racism was a byproduct of a very racialized time, and in some sense appropriate to the position he took. Obviously it is something he should be criticized for, but there is more to it than "X is/isn't a racist"
like, obviously the better path is the one MLK took
I guess we are, I can rationalize his anger/hatred towards white-people/society, I'd probably feel the same way were I in his time/position. His racism though, considering that in all likelihood it came long after his anger/hate as he experienced racial-oppression early on , I can't. It's also outright laughable, the concept of it, even more-so than the KKK's idiotic rants on racial superiority for whites.