In "History Channel's" Defense, it could be the mentality of Texan independence, that they were referring to...because, from that point on, they certainly fought like they had earned their independence. Sometimes, "defeat" is actually a victory.
Oh. Why? The Brits never owned America, they owned Canada and the Louisiana Purchase.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
when Britain controlled the land, it wasn't democratic, when America became independant, it was. KK's remark was that there was an America-before-it-was-democratic.
Obviously I got the point he was making, it was more of a joke
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
The panthers were birthed directly from the acts of assassinating Malcom X and MLK, and they saw it as an act of war against black people ("They're killing our leaders!") and felt it was time to take an aggressive military stance against a people with a history of violence against them or be beaten down forever. Malcolm felt the same basically... that everyone needed to protect themselves from violent oppresion using violence if necessary... and he didn't change that POV when he got older, nor should he have. That's certainly not a "racist" concept, just a common sense one.
What changed was the Nation of Islam idea that whites were inherently evil (devils), a concept that is definitely racist. Malcolm stopped believing that when he was exposed to orthodox Islam during his trip overseas.
__________________
Last edited by MRasheed on Feb 28th, 2011 at 05:29 PM
In my experience, people who think that usually have a weird, highly inaccurate, grotesquely caricatured, Magneto-type understanding of what Malcolm X was actually about.
there are reasonable explanations for why X and other black nationalists might have adopted the stance they did, that isn't the same as accepting that they had a valid or meaningful point.
I love X, but he did stand for things I can't say I agree with, and he certainly deserves to be criticized for it. Even at the end of his life, when people said he calmed down, it may just be that he switched from understanding issues through racial paradigms to understanding them through Muslim paradigms, because he certainly though the path to social change was through everyone just adopting the same beliefs as he had.
Switching from a "all white people are devils!" mindset to a "all people are equal under God and He only judges between who is righteous and who is evil" mindset is definitely a calming down.
At some point he was. He used to think that all whites were inherently evil.
I'm not. I'm questioning the idea that, although he left the NOI, certain types of people still say he was "a racist @ss."
The Nation of Islam is still there in it's new Farrakhan version. What does that have to do with anything? If you were a former member of the KKK, should I be mad at you because the KKK's "ideas that you embraced" are still around? That was a weird thing to say.
So you agree that when he was part of the NOI it was a 'racist ass' group and Malcolm X embraced those same very 'racist ass' ideals when he was with them.
Yet you're arguing and claiming people are ignorant via the use of too many words why? To troll? Fail, bro.
Robtard, you know very well what I am asking you. You are being deliberately dishonest in this discussion.
Let's try again:
When Malcom X was in the NOI, he believed all whites were devils. During his trip overseas he realized how wrong that concept was and publicly repented of it. Yet you are still referring to him as a "racist @ss." Why?
KMC Community Forums
Feb 28th, 2011 02:05 AM
