NationStates Jolt Archive

When I learnt about American Civil rights the focus of the curriculum was mostly towards Martin Luther King and the mainstream movement, while Malcolm X and the nation of Islam was only given a superficial glance so I didnt learn much about them.

Lately I've been doing some research on Malcolm X just out of idle curiosity and have found him to be a highly interesting figure. I can certainly understand the diversity of opinions regarding this man, both positive and negative and I was wondering what your views are. How influential was he to the civil rights movement? Was he a hateful bigot or a courageous leader who stood up to protect African Americans? Should his later renunciation of his hate towards all whites earn him forgiveness for influencing multitudes of African Americans into adopting a black supremist attitude? And lastly is there any American on this forum who is old enough to rememberhim?

Meh. Right aims to some extent, wrong methods. If white people hate and fear you already, shooting at them will just ingrain this image.

Its plausable that Malcom X helped the civil rights movement succeed far more than he is given credit for.

I don't know enough about the man, nor the NoI, to judge.

Also, didn't his views radically change, over time?

1. I'm old enough to remember him.
2. My opinion of him is that he's dead.

Also, didn't his views radically change, over time?

Radically? No. But they went from "Fight the white man" to "The white man hates us so we should all just leave and go back to Africa".


It should be noted that I just summed it up in the broadest, most general of terms.

Meh. Right aims to some extent, wrong methods. If white people hate and fear you already, shooting at them will just ingrain this image.

I don't think he ever shot or told anyone to shoot a white person. Correct me if I'm wrong but I beleieve he only preached violence for self defense and did not call anyone to be the aggressor.

I thought he hurt the civil rights movement rather than help it. MLK Jr. was trying to bring the two races together, in brotherly love and understanding. Malcolm X basically went to the other extreme from the White Supremacist. He became a black Supremacist, and I think that really hurt the movement.

I thought he hurt the civil rights movement rather than help it. MLK Jr. was trying to bring the two races together, in brotherly love and understanding.

Debatable. The threat and fear of violence (even if that fear is slightly unjustified) can really mak people cooperate with the non-violent group trying to achieve the same ends.


Malcolm X basically went to the other extreme from the White Supremacist. He became a black Supremacist, and I think that really hurt the movement.

Hardly a "black supremacist". He just didnt really trust white people. A quick look at his childhood will explan why.

Radically? No. But they went from "Fight the white man" to "The white man hates us so we should all just leave and go back to Africa".

It should be noted that I just summed it up in the broadest, most general of terms.
As I said, I don't know enough.

His autobiography is on my 'to read' list.

As I said, I don't know enough.

His autobiography is on my 'to read' list.

Hes an interesting fellow, if a bit...out there.


I also recommend people read the Black Panther's charter (Im sure its on the interwebz). Their bilaws may suprise you, as they probably dont mesh with wha your perception of them is.

I... I really don't know what to think. I mean, we're talking about a guy who believed whites (aka, everyone who isn't 'black') was created by some mad scientist named Yakub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub)... :confused:

How influential was he to the civil rights movement?
He and King unintentionally played the "good cop / bad cop" game. You know: better to settle with people like King than to have deal with X. In that respect he helped to push things forward.
Was he a hateful bigot or a courageous leader who stood up to protect African Americans?
Both.
Should his later renunciation of his hate towards all whites earn him forgiveness for influencing multitudes of African Americans into adopting a black supremist attitude?
I would say so. Not everyone would agree.
And lastly is there any American on this forum who is old enough to rememberhim?
Yeah. Of course I was still young when he was shot.

I... I really don't know what to think. I mean, we're talking about a guy who believed whites (aka, everyone who isn't 'black') was created by some mad scientist named Yakub...

You mean used to beleive. I think youll find most of religions have just as if not more absurd beleifs that arent really an important aspect of its overall message. The nation of Islam was probably more about giving black people a unique identity and a sense of dignity than it was about religion. Most Malcolm X speeches focused on these themes rather than raving about mad scientists and how they created white people.

I agree with Tmutarakhan, Malcolm X forced people into choosing between two alterantives fast. The longer that society went without granting African Americans full equality, the more African Americans would start disputing the effienciency of Dr.Kings methods and would feel more inclined towards Malcolm Xs angrier worldview.

Racist wanker. World is a better place without him.

Racist wanker. World is a better place without him.

Shot by his own people. Couldn't be too bright.

Shot by his own people. Couldn't be too bright.

Ironic. "The whites are out to kill you! The whites are out to kill you!". That prediction has to be up there with Bill Gates' opinions on PC memory.

I... I really don't know what to think. I mean, we're talking about a guy who believed whites (aka, everyone who isn't 'black') was created by some mad scientist named Yakub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub)... :confused:

I understand he fell out with them after he went to Mecca or something. But hey, least it wasn't this (http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuwaubianism&sa=X&oi=revisions_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNGhaWGkbjc6AiVD_HUB83VclRg3DQ).

Originally Posted by Ferrous Oxide
Racist wanker. World is a better place without him.

Something personal against him? I think his racism was somewhat understandable given his own experiences and he had the integrity to say he was wrong about his views later in life.

He was shot because he exposed the nation of Islams leader Elijah Muhammad as a hippocritical fraud who was using his position to sleep with teenage girls, and because Elijah Muhammad was jealous that MX was getting more media attention than him. Its inaccurate to say he was shot by his own people, they were more loyal to the nation than they were to him which is what motivated them to kill MX.

Ironic. "The whites are out to kill you! The whites are out to kill you!". That prediction has to be up there with Bill Gates' opinions on PC memory

What, youre telling me that you honestly dont think there were certain whites back at that time who did not pose a danger to his life, considering that his paremts were shot by supremacists and the fact that he lived in a time of segregation and racial violence.

"During National Brotherhood Week, special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood. This year, for example, on the first day of the week, for example, Malcolm X was killed, which gives you an idea how effective the whole thing is!" -- Tom Lehrer, intro to National Brotherhood Week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGMi0fTXvA)

...to be honest, I never read much about Malcolm X. I know that he's one of the civil rights leaders (possibly second only to MLK), but that's about it. Sorry :(

Shot by his own people. Couldn't be too bright.

Men of peace and reconciliation are always martyred by their own people. Jesus, Gandhi, Malcolm X. The world's not too bright, but these individuals are.

Racist wanker. World is a better place without him.

Potato Kettle condeming Pot for the same thing. Since you admit racism is wankery, I'll accept this as a confession from you as well.

Now you can return to your regularly scheduled fantasy of Bush, Blair and Howard never leaving office.

Shot by his own people. Couldn't be too bright.

Shot by members of The Nation of Islam after he split off from them and found authentic Islam. Yeah, it had nothing to do with a power struggle and was all about race. Another Ace Ventura impression out of you, surprise.

My opinion of Malcom X?

- piece of crap

Malcolm X was a complex man. The main thing about him, I think, was that he was a mentally strong and courageous individual, willing to step beyond what was expected of him, to disobey when he felt he was in the right.

Ultimately, I believe he was a force for good. By his life, he gave many African-Americans the courage to stand up and make themselves heard. By his death, he discredited the racist/black supremacist establishment he had come to despise.

Racist wanker. World is a better place without him.
Planning on leaving us soon (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14373814&postcount=42)?

Now you can return to your regularly scheduled fantasy of Bush, Blair and Howard never leaving office.

When have I ever expressed support for that fuckwit?

Planning on leaving us soon (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14373814&postcount=42)?

Everybody's racist, so the point is moot. I'm talking about real racism, like black nationalism.

Everybody's racist, so the point is moot. I'm talking about real racism, like black nationalism.
'Real' racism, as opposed to?

'Real' racism, as opposed to?

Natural racism; having a natural favourable leaning towards people who look like you. Everybody has it, and people who say they don't are liars.

'Real' racism, as opposed to?

To the good kind, like keeping those niggers down.

On topic, like I said, Malcolm X is complex. He arguably helped the civil rights movement along in ways King couldt have, and, along with the founding of the Black Panthers, gave blacks some kind of protection.

On the other hand, he was out there.

Natural racism; having a natural favourable leaning towards people who look like you. Everybody has it, and people who say they don't are liars.

So it's okay to be racist as long as it's not organized racism then Potato Boy? Oh damn, by your logic all those Neo-Nazi groups ought to disband so it can be fashionable.

Still trying to be the star of a Romper Stompers remake?

Very low regard.

So it's okay to be racist as long as it's not organized racism then Potato Boy? Oh damn, by your logic all those Neo-Nazi groups ought to disband so it can be fashionable.

Yeah, pretty much.

Besides, you're racist. Don't deny it, everybody is.

Yeah, pretty much.

Besides, you're racist. Don't deny it, everybody is.

I love you trying to justify your own racism.

No. Everybody isnt. But, will it make you feel better if we say we are?

Yeah, pretty much.

Besides, you're racist. Don't deny it, everybody is.

Youre entitled to your ludicrous opinion but dont try to paint everyone out to be the same as you. I am no racist and have no "natural leaning" towards people who look like me.

Natural racism; having a natural favourable leaning towards people who look like you.
A 'natural favourable leaning' in what way?

In that I'd put the interests of my white friends before that of my black, brown or yellow ones?

Natural racism; having a natural favourable leaning towards people who look like you. Everybody has it, and people who say they don't are liars.

He's right; I'm genetically predisposed towards fellow Dragons.

A 'natural favourable leaning' in what way?

In that I'd put the interests of my white friends before that of my black, brown or yellow ones?

Sorta cancels the idea out.

Youre entitled to your ludicrous opinion but dont try to paint everyone out to be the same as you. I am no racist and have no "natural leaning" towards people who look like me.

Sure you're not.

Sorta cancels the idea out.
If I had, as you argue, a 'natural leaning' to people with similar skin pigmentation as my own then, no matter if they were friends, I would be inclined to help my white friends before my black, brown or yellow ones.

Unless your argument is that humans are naturally wary of strangers; which has nothing to do with racism.

Sure you're not.

Oh I get it, youre a troll.

Just out of curioisty, do you have a problem with interracial relationships? Do you beleive that any one race is inherently superior to another?

Just out of curioisty, do you have a problem with interracial relationships?

No.

Do you beleive that any one race is inherently superior to another?

Possibly, I'm not a scientist. But I base this on history, not on gut feelings.

I... I really don't know what to think. I mean, we're talking about a guy who believed whites (aka, everyone who isn't 'black') was created by some mad scientist named Yakub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub)... :confused:

He changed later on. As did Ali.

Shot by his own people. Couldn't be too bright.


Like Kennedy and that Lincoln dude?

Still trying to be the star of a Romper Stompers remake?

Yep. "RS II - Leb Vengeance"

Like Kennedy and that Lincoln dude?

You'd have a point, if either had gone around saying how that blacks or Asians or latinos were out to get whites.

Like Kennedy and that Lincoln dude?

One could make the argument that unlike Malcolm X, Kennedy didn't know his shooter personally. Neither did Lincoln.

Malcolm knew all of his shooters.

Oh I get it, youre a troll.

And we have a saying around here: Don't feed the troll.:wink:

You'd have a point, if either had gone around saying how that blacks or Asians or latinos were out to get whites.

But Malcolms father was strung up by a white mob...or does context not count when you've a bit a of a 'suntan'....

But Malcolms father was strung up by a white mob...or does context not count when you've a bit a of a 'suntan'....

That's not a very good excuse.

That's not a very good excuse.

Seeing your father murdered by whites isnt a good excuse for not trusting them?


We get it Rusty. Niggers are inferior to your pure white Australianess.

my opinion of Malcolm X depends on how accurate Malcolm X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X_(film)) is.

We get it Rusty. Niggers are inferior to your pure white Australianess.

Wowee, he actually said that!

We get it Rusty. Niggers are inferior to your pure white Australianess.

Sarcastic or not, there is no excuse for the use of the word "Niggers". Warned for flaming.

Sarcastic or not, there is no excuse for the use of the word "Niggers". Warned for flaming.

Wait, since when is that word not censored? It was like...last week.

Please Jolt, make up your damn mind.

Sarcastic or not, there is no excuse for the use of the word "Niggers". Warned for flaming.

Even black people shy away from it's use on the internet, where you can't tell what colour people are.

I wish he would've said "all humans are evil and should die" instead of just whites... for that I can never forgive him.

That's not a very good excuse.

My son, I've never entirely forgiven the Brits and I was born near on 50 years after they left the south.

(in fact comments on how violent 'black' people are supposed to be often amuse me that way. If they were half as bloody minded as a bunch of pasty faced paddies, yez would know about it.)

I wish he would've said "all humans are evil and should die" instead of just whites... for that I can never forgive him.

Seconded. Hell, with a few drinks in me, I would have agreed.

Whenever We learnt about Malcolm X in school the teachers deliberately ignored his racism against White people, that was annoying but expected. I also remember watching the Malcolm X film, where it starts of with him giving of a hate speech against White people, and the teachers think its just acceptable to applaud it and treat it like it was justified.

Whenever We learnt about Malcolm X in school the teachers deliberately ignored his racism against White people, that was annoying but expected.

Not if your teacher never went over it. Apparently, it isn't on the curriculum down South.

Not if your teacher never went over it. Apparently, it isn't on the curriculum down South.

Well the teachers lauded over how he was black and how he preached for black rights and that's about it, we also learned about him in Religious Education under the excuse he changed his religion several times and was outspoken about it. (yeah right :rolleyes:)

Well the teachers lauded over how he was black and how he preached for black rights and that's about it, we also learned about him in Religious Education under the excuse he changed his religion several times and was outspoken about it. (yeah right :rolleyes:)

I dont understand your point here. Are you saying there is some anti-White conspericy?

Well the teachers lauded over how he was black and how he preached for black rights and that's about it, we also learned about him in Religious Education under the excuse he changed his religion several times and was outspoken about it. (yeah right :rolleyes:)

He's responsable for Farakon or however the hell you spell his name, isn't he?

I dont understand your point here. Are you saying there is some anti-White conspericy?

I'm saying that the school portrayed his racism against White people as perfectly acceptable.

He's responsable for Farakon or however the hell you spell his name, isn't he?

-shifts eyes nervously- Yes? .. Or no? ... You decide?

I'm saying that the school portrayed his racism against White people as perfectly acceptable.

Well, isn't it!?

Well, isn't it!?

Only if racism is acceptable to other races.

I'm saying that the school portrayed his racism against White people as perfectly acceptable.

Considering his childhood, its not acceptable, but understandable.

Its not really unacceptable either, because he never killed anyone or ordered anyone killed over it, like the Klan did.

Considering his childhood, its not acceptable, but understandable.

Its not really unacceptable either, because he never killed anyone or ordered anyone killed over it, like the Klan did.

Its not unacceptable if it doesn't hurt anyone, yet the way the media would have believe Racism is the ultimate crime ... evar!

Its not unacceptable if it doesn't hurt anyone, yet the way the media would have believe Racism is the ultimate crime ... evar!

if it leads to death or discrimination, emotional harm, lack/removal of rights,etc. then yes it is
also why are you even paying attention to the media, there full of liberals. I know I read it on the forums.

Its not unacceptable if it doesn't hurt anyone, yet the way the media would have believe Racism is the ultimate crime ... evar!

Oh, I see, youre one of those white high schoolers who feels like you are now the victims of a massive anti-white conspirecy, a society where everyone can hate you and be prejudice against you, but you are unfairly bared from calling minorities racial slurs or lynching them. And those damn Mexicans "TOOK YER JERBS!!!" too, right?


You'll grow out of it, dont worry.

if it leads to death or discrimination, emotional harm, lack/removal of rights,etc. then yes it is
also why are you even paying attention to the media, there full of liberals. I know I read it on the forums.

Well yeah anything is pretty much unacceptable if it leads to discrimination and harm and such.

Oh, I see, youre one of those white high schoolers who feels like you are now the victims of a massive anti-white conspirecy, a society where everyone can hate you and be prejudice against you, but you are unfairly bared from calling minorities racial slurs or lynching them. And those damn Mexicans "TOOK YER JERBS!!!" too, right?


You'll grow out of it, dont worry.

Your wrong and wrong and well there's more wrong there. And well a lot of people take jobs that I could possibly have, to whine just 'cause its a Mexican is stupid.

Your wrong and wrong and well there's more wrong there. And well a lot of people take jobs that I could possibly have, to whine just 'cause its a Mexican is stupid.



I may be wrong. Im just telling you what your angsty "The school said it was ok that Malcolm X hated whites!" whining gave the impression of.

I may be wrong. Im just telling you what your angsty "The school said it was ok that Malcolm X was white!" whining gave the impression of.

I whined 'cause it annoyed me that as far as I know its standard across schools in my area. And us angsty teenagers need to whine :wink:

I whined 'cause it annoyed me that as far as I know its standard across schools in my area. And us angsty teenagers need to whine :wink:

To be honost, I highly doubt that the schools are saying 'Its ok to hate white people'.

To be honost, I highly doubt that the schools are saying 'Its ok to hate white people'.

Well not that I know off, though my R.E teacher was like meh when people pointed out the hate speech against White people at the start.

**grits teeth and decides against going off at ignorance and prejudice in this thread**

Well not that I know off, though my R.E teacher was like meh when people pointed out the hate speech against White people at the start.

Let me ask you this, don't you think a black man in Malcolm X's position had more valid reasons to hate white people than white people at that time had for hating, segregating, and/or enslaving blacks?

Let me ask you this, don't you think a black man in Malcolm X's position had more valid reasons to hate white people than white people at that time had for hating, segregating, and/or enslaving blacks?

A lot of people where enslaved, to claim it racist is just ignorant rhetoric. And people can be racist if they want, so long as it doesn't have negative repercussions such as active discrimination.
And as to answer your question (which I forgot to do) It depends on what you consider a valid reason to hate white people, as to counter point your point, there is a good reason for white people to do that is you consider it valid (Crime statistics and such)

... Yeah just wait for some one to go and say "its not crime its poverty! It nots crime it anger at the system!"

WHOA! When the word was censored a while back, we were specifically reassurred that mere use of the word was not going to be verboten.** KoL's sarcastic use does not denegrate or flame any other poster. It is, in fact, a criticism of another's argument.

Maybe you could call it flamebaiting, but even that seems a bit bizarre.

**I'll try to find the relevant posts to link.

I wonder whether they will try to censor Niger for naming itself after it :\

Natural racism; having a natural favourable leaning towards people who look like you. Everybody has it, and people who say they don't are liars.

Ah, this nonsense again I see.

No FO, I know it would comfort you very much to think that everyone is just as racist, bigoted and close-minded as you, but wishing won't make it so. Your excuses for your so-called "natural racism" are pathetic, transparent, and shallow attempts at justification.

A lot of people where enslaved, to claim it racist is just ignorant rhetoric. And people can be racist if they want, so long as it doesn't have negative repercussions such as active discrimination.

1. Your failure to answer the question is conspicuous.

2. Did you just try to argue that slavery in the United States was not racist?

3. Your statement that racism is OK so long as it doesn't involve active discrimination would seem to contradict your impugning of Malcolm X.

A lot of people where enslaved, to claim it racist is just ignorant rhetoric.

Its true. The enslavement of blacks was not racist or based on race. It was done by lottery. Blacks just have crappy luck.


And people can be racist if they want, so long as it doesn't have negative repercussions such as active discrimination.

Like the segregation and enslavement Cat mentioned?

Ah, this nonsense again I see.

No FO, I know it would comfort you very much to think that everyone is just as racist, bigoted and close-minded as you, but wishing won't make it so. Your excuses for your so-called "natural racism" are pathetic, transparent, and shallow attempts at justification.

Trosia, you continue to reveal your lack of verse in modern primatology.

There was a study where 5 apes were put in a room, one of them was dressed like Elton John, from the good years.

The other apes shunned him, showing that we favor things that look like us, making racism "natural", and therefore, blacks are all either Whitney Houston or Muslims. The Pipe, or the Pipe-bombs.

1. Your failure to answer the question is conspicuous.

2. Did you just try to argue that slavery in the United States was not racist?

3. Your statement that racism is OK so long as it doesn't involve active discrimination would seem to contradict your impugning of Malcolm X.

Many slaves in the Americas where white source: http://www.srpressgazette.com/opinion/new_5780___article.html/december_parades.html

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too."
Source: “They Were White and They Were Slaves”, by Michael Hoffman

A major reason for the enslavement of blacks was due to the think it was easy to get them as slaves, African leaders where more than happy to sell their people for commodities they didn't have (thats what the whole atlantic triangle was about) And it was easy to conquer and enslave African's.
Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black.
And as for my statement about the whole Malcolm X thing was due to the fact the School system chastises the whole racism thing and yet there more than happy to allow it when it comes to teaching Malcolm X.

There was a study where 5 apes were put in a room, one of them was dressed like Elton John

OK just stop, I don't want to hear the rest of this story.

Its true. The enslavement of blacks was not racist or based on race. It was done by lottery. Blacks just have crappy luck.



Like the segregation and enslavement Cat mentioned?

You know in SA when segregation was in place more black people had cars than there where cars owned in the USSR, that they had the highest income of any black people in first world countries?
But yeah segregation was the cause of a lot of racism, Edit: What I meant was there was racism to with and because of segregation.

There was a study where 5 apes were put in a room, one of them was dressed like Elton John, from the good years.

Sounds like some people had fun ;)

You know in SA when segregation was in place more black people had cars than there where cars owned in the USSR, that they had the highest income of any black people in first world countries?
But yeah segregation was the cause of a lot of racism.

Sure, segregation caused racism. Not the other way around.

And having more cars than those in Soviet Russia means you're having to dig pretty deep in order to make their situation look good.

"No, you can't drink from this fountain, eat here, go to school here...but on average, you're more likely to have a car than in Soviet Russia! That means equal treatment and human dignity don't matter! Get a Buick!"

Sure, segregation caused racism. Not the other way around.

And having more cars than those in Soviet Russia means you're having to dig pretty deep in order to make their situation look good.

"No, you can't drink from this fountain, eat here, go to school here...but on average, you're more likely to have a car than in Soviet Russia! That means equal treatment and human dignity don't matter! Get a Buick!"

Well what I meant was there was a lot of racism to do with segregation, maybe there was segregation for an actual reason other than there black we're White.

Many slaves in the Americas where white source: http://www.srpressgazette.com/opinion/new_5780___article.html/december_parades.html

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too."
Source: “They Were White and They Were Slaves”, by Michael Hoffman

A major reason for the enslavement of blacks was due to the think it was easy to get them as slaves, African leaders where more than happy to sell their people for commodities they didn't have (thats what the whole atlantic triangle was about) And it was easy to conquer and enslave African's.
Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black.
And as for my statement about the whole Malcolm X thing was due to the fact the School system chastises the whole racism thing and yet there more than happy to allow it when it comes to teaching Malcolm X.

So, penal colonies, and whites from Scotland being sent as penal laborers (or "political prisoners" in some views)...is the same as the slavery that was applied to blacks?

"Gee, negroes, quit your complaining...the Scots and Irish were treated like shit, too, and subject to wretched British penal laws...so enslaving you centuries is fine!"

Sure, segregation caused racism. Not the other way around.

And having more cars than those in Soviet Russia means you're having to dig pretty deep in order to make their situation look good.

"No, you can't drink from this fountain, eat here, go to school here...but on average, you're more likely to have a car than in Soviet Russia! That means equal treatment and human dignity don't matter! Get a Buick!"

I had to read this twice to make sure this was the real argument he was making. I mean, it's sorta lunacy. You know that whole "black people can't eat here, sit here, stand here, or talk to anyone in here...that sure caused a lot of racism. Funny how we never had racism before we did that...."

Well what I meant was there was a lot of racism to do with segregation, maybe there was segregation for an actual reason other than there black we're White.

I'm sure you're right. They probably used some other sorting algorithm, like standardized testing, or Astrology.

So, penal colonies, and whites from Scotland being sent as penal laborers (or "political prisoners" in some views)...is the same as the slavery that was applied to blacks?

"Gee, negroes, quit your complaining...the Scots and Irish were treated like shit, too, and subject to wretched British penal laws...so enslaving you centuries is fine!"

Yes it is, the slavery to White people was just as bad as it was to black people except they had a different name for it. And my point was that slavery was about convenience not race.

I'm sure you're right. They probably used some other sorting algorithm, like standardized testing, or Astrology.

How can you possibly know what the people who implemented it where truly thinking?

I had to read this twice to make sure this was the real argument he was making. I mean, it's sorta lunacy. You know that whole "black people can't eat here, sit here, stand here, or talk to anyone in here...that sure caused a lot of racism. Funny how we never had racism before we did that...."

You Jews don't really have much basis for complaint...you were skilled labor slaves, treated differently, allowed to read, access to showers...





I'm sorry.

A major reason for the enslavement of blacks was due to the think it was easy to get them as slaves, African leaders where more than happy to sell their people for commodities they didn't have (thats what the whole atlantic triangle was about) And it was easy to conquer and enslave African's.
Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black.

You know, you gotta love the subtle implication of this. We didn't enslave blacks because they were black. No, no, see, we just needed slaves, and blacks were easy to get as slaves, that's all! In fact, the reason we got so many african slaves is because of OTHER africans who SOLD THEM TO US!

In fact. That's the real reason. Not racism. No no, the real cause of black slavery was...black people!

Of course, it all makes sense now!

I had to read this twice to make sure this was the real argument he was making. I mean, it's sorta lunacy. You know that whole "black people can't eat here, sit here, stand here, or talk to anyone in here...that sure caused a lot of racism. Funny how we never had racism before we did that...."

Read my other post where I pointed out I meant there was a lot of racism to do with segregation. Now I will go and edit my mistake.

You Jews don't really have much basis for complaint...you were skilled labor slaves, treated differently, allowed to read, access to showers...

I nearly spit out my milk on that last one.

Perhaps he did not stop discrimination by whites, but he help end feelings of inferiority among African-Americans. I would not say he was not much of a "black supremest", though many of his successors and friends were.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

You know, you gotta love the subtle implication of this. We didn't enslave blacks because they were black. No, no, see, we just needed slaves, and blacks were easy to get as slaves, that's all! In fact, the reason we got so many african slaves is because of OTHER africans who SOLD THEM TO US!

In fact. That's the real reason. Not racism. No no, the real cause of black slavery was...black people!

Of course, it all makes sense now!

One of my points was that black leaders sold black people, what I was getting at was that there where a lot of factors involved in enslaving them race not being an important one. So your sarcasm doesn't actually achieve anything.

Yes it is, the slavery to White people was just as bad as it was to black people except they had a different name for it. And my point was that slavery was about convenience not race.

Being tried and convicted of a crime and sent to a penal colony is a level of injustice, but not quite as just being sold off because you were there.

And if you think slavery was about "convenience, not race", you might check the laws and regulations of the pre-Civil War South. They mention Race quite a lot.


How can you possibly know what the people who implemented it where truly thinking?

Well, they wrote a lot of it down (see above laws), acted on it, killed over, maintained it as social policy for centuries...I guess they could have been faking, but they sure were committed to the gag, huh?

I nearly spit out my milk on that last one.

Me, too.

Well, technically I wasn't drinking milk, so I didn't nearly spit it out, but...damn. BfC, you sure know how to make someone simultaneously crack up laughing and feel guilty for doing so. :p

One of my points was that black leaders sold black people, what I was getting at was that there where a lot of factors involved in enslaving them race not being an important one. So your sarcasm doesn't actually achieve anything.

I'll buy it that slavery was a more complicated issue than simply racism, but to state that racism wasn't a major factor in that...just...goes beyond all rational comprehension.

Although, you raised a point so allow me to respond to it. you are right, there were white people who lived in what we'd call slavery. And that was hereditary. But why wasn't it nearly to the same numbers? And why as an institution didn't it last?

Churches. Namely, churches that actively fought the practice of white slavery, feeling it unchristian to enslave fellow human Christians. And back in those days, churches had a LOT of political clout.

Those same churches...didn't really have a problem with the idea of black slavery though. Funny that.

Being tried and convicted of a crime and sent to a penal colony is a level of injustice, but not quite as just being sold off because you were there.

And if you think slavery was about "convenience, not race", you might check the laws and regulations of the pre-Civil War South. They mention Race quite a lot.



Well, they wrote a lot of it down (see above laws), acted on it, killed over, maintained it as social policy for centuries...I guess they could have been faking, but they sure were committed to the gag, huh?

As I said there was a lot of racism around, but are you really saying that en slavery was race based? :rolleyes: My point is that slavery was about convenience so I'm not gonna argue about racist violence in America.

Well, they wrote a lot of it down (see above laws), acted on it, killed over, maintained it as social policy for centuries...I guess they could have been faking, but they sure were committed to the gag, huh?

you know that scene from When Hally Met Sally? Meg Ryan aint got nothing on them.

but are you really saying that en slavery was race based?

are you really saying that it wasn't?

you know that scene from When Hally Met Sally? Meg Ryan aint got nothing on them.

"I'll have what SHE'S enslaving!"

I'll buy it that slavery was a more complicated issue than simply racism, but to state that racism wasn't a major factor in that...just...goes beyond all rational comprehension.

Although, you raised a point so allow me to respond to it. you are right, there were white people who lived in what we'd call slavery. And that was hereditary. But why wasn't it nearly to the same numbers? And why as an institution didn't it last?

Churches. Namely, churches that actively fought the practice of white slavery, feeling it unchristian to enslave fellow human Christians. And back in those days, churches had a LOT of political clout.

Those same churches...didn't really have a problem with the idea of black slavery though. Funny that.

My argument is that slavery wasn't originally about racism but racism became tied into it, Slavery was pretty much about convenience but that caused the spread of a lot of racism.

As I said there was a lot of racism around, but are you really saying that en slavery was race based?

Uh, yes. That's the historical consensus - hard to believe though it its. What's next, people are going to say the Holocaust was race based? Puh-leeeease. We know better.

Many slaves in the Americas where white source: http://www.srpressgazette.com/opinion/new_5780___article.html/december_parades.html

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too."
Source: “They Were White and They Were Slaves”, by Michael Hoffman

A major reason for the enslavement of blacks was due to the think it was easy to get them as slaves, African leaders where more than happy to sell their people for commodities they didn't have (thats what the whole atlantic triangle was about) And it was easy to conquer and enslave African's.
Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black.
And as for my statement about the whole Malcolm X thing was due to the fact the School system chastises the whole racism thing and yet there more than happy to allow it when it comes to teaching Malcolm X.

Your source appears to be a letter to the editor/guest opinoin piece in a small, local newspaper citing the works of a well-known conspiracy theorist, Holocaust & slavery denier, and all-around kook. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

Regardless, try reading SCOTUS's opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393), 60 U.S. 393 (1857), and then tell me that slavery in the U.S. wasn't racist. Here are just a few relevant passages:

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.

[Negros] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

... [A] perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created beings, that intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not only in the parties, but in the person who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this respect was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race.

are you really saying that it wasn't?

Yes my point is that the slaves where there cause it was cheaper and more convenient, its not like White Europeans decided that they want black slaves 'cause there black.

One of my points was that black leaders sold black people, what I was getting at was that there where a lot of factors involved in enslaving them race not being an important one. So your sarcasm doesn't actually achieve anything.

Actually, his sarcasm achieves, quite starkly, the illustration that inherent to your argument is that blacks are inherently lesser.

The same mentality that is prevalent in the clear, explicit, persistent words and actions of slave holders and the society surrounding it.

If we go back and look at the enacted policies and documented opinions of slave holders, do you think we'll get more "Blacks are inferior", or your interpretation, "Its not because their black, its just convenient to buy them"?

Uh, yes. That's the historical consensus - hard to believe though it its. What's next, people are going to say the Holocaust was race based? Puh-leeeease. We know better.

So your saying that Europeans went and enslaved Africans solely for there race, and no other reason, cause by refuting my points that is what you are doing.

My argument is that slavery wasn't originally about racism

No, it's not. In fact your argument is, I quote "Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black." You said quite clearly, African slavery wasn't about race. Nothing about the initial origins.

So your saying that Europeans went and enslaved Africans solely for there race, and no other reason, cause by refuting my points that is what you are doing.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that racism *obviously* played a huge role in who they chose to enslave, and the piles of evidence you're currently being buried in by TCT and others here proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I am also saying that your claims that "race was unimportant" on the subject of enslavement of the black race are so patently absurd that it's literally stunning.

Actually, his sarcasm achieves, quite starkly, the illustration that inherent to your argument is that blacks are inherently lesser.

The same mentality that is prevalent in the clear, explicit, persistent words and actions of slave holders and the society surrounding it.

If we go back and look at the enacted policies and documented opinions of slave holders, do you think we'll get more "Blacks are inferior", or your interpretation, "Its not because their black, its just convenient to buy them"?

Well to me the sarcasm just shows wrong deductions :/ Even if they considered blacks inferior they still didn't enslave them due to race, otherwise they wouldn't have had White slaves and you are saying they went to African, not cause it was cheaper and easier but 'cause they had black people there.

As I said there was a lot of racism around, but are you really saying that en slavery was race based? :rolleyes: My point is that slavery was about convenience so I'm not gonna argue about racist violence in America.

Boy, that's good, because if you were going to argue about racist violence in America, it would pertain to the environment that Malcolm X existed in.

Better stick to explaining how slavery was not based on race.

Then, you just have to find an example of a white man being held as a slave, outside of your attempt at rendering penal colonies as the same kind of slavery.

So your saying that Europeans went and enslaved Africans solely for there race, and no other reason, cause by refuting my points that is what you are doing.

If refuting your claim was to yield the statement "africans were enslaved soley for their race and no other reason" than your argument would have been "there were reasons beyond race". But that's not what you said. In fact, you said:

Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black.

that there where a lot of factors involved in enslaving them race not being an important one

its not like White Europeans decided that they want black slaves 'cause there black.

In fact, it appears quite clear that you're NOT trying to say that race was the SOLE factor. Your words indicate, quite clearly, that your argument is, in fact, that race wasn't a factor at all, or, at best, was a minor one.

I suggest you learn how to do this better, then come back.

edit: by the way, I don't nitpick spelling much, but for god's sake man, but there are three ways to spell their/they're/there, and you used every way except for the right one.

Uh, yes. That's the historical consensus - hard to believe though it its.
Erm?

Most of Europe up until the 1780s and Russia up to 1917 much? Or the Romans, who had a colour-blind system of slavery? Or black-on-black slavery in Africa when that's been around?
What's next, people are going to say the Holocaust was race based? Puh-leeeease. We know better.
Nice. Good to kick your own credibility in the head once in a while.

you are saying they went to African, not cause it was cheaper and easier but 'cause they had black people there.

I see where you're coming from, and you make a good argument. I think I have a good response, but you're going to have to stick with me, it's kind of complicated and nuanced, so I hope I get it all out right. So...just..you know...stick with me.

Here goes...

both

...well, that actually wasn't that hard after all.

Erm?

Most of Europe up until the 1780s and Russia up to 1917 much? Or the Romans, who had a colour-blind system of slavery? Or black-on-black slavery in Africa when that's been around?

WOW I had no idea that the United States encompassed Ancient Rome, all of Africa, much of Europe and Russia. thx 4 educudjelmating me.



Nice. Good to kick your own credibility in the head once in a while.

Wait, are you actually now going to blather that the Holocaust too had nothing to do with race? Or is just the fact that I mentioned the Holocaust somehow damaging to my credibility? Do explain.

No, it's not. In fact your argument is, I quote "Yes there was a lot of racism during that time but people didn't go and enslave Africans 'Cause their black." You said quite clearly, African slavery wasn't about race. Nothing about the initial origins.

And it wasn't based on race it was based on convenience but a lot of people where racist then especially towards their slaves if they where black. And by talking about the African Slavery I have to talk about its origins which I have stated repeatedly was due to convenience.

actually that was part of it, looks for that source.
Something about how black was foreign and unusual and it raised one's social rank in some way

Your point only shows that slave owners revelled in owning black slaves due to their own racism.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that racism *obviously* played a huge role in who they chose to enslave, and the piles of evidence you're currently being buried in by TCT and others here proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I am also saying that your claims that "race was unimportant" on the subject of enslavement of the black race are so patently absurd that it's literally stunning.

I have pointed out that racism spread and began to play a bigger role but the main reason African's where enslaved was due to the fact it was easier. That's also why many other slaves where en slaved.

Boy, that's good, because if you were going to argue about racist violence in America, it would pertain to the environment that Malcolm X existed in.

Better stick to explaining how slavery was not based on race.

Then, you just have to find an example of a white man being held as a slave, outside of your attempt at rendering penal colonies as the same kind of slavery.

I already gave sources about White slaves, you wants moar?

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Surely you'll believe Wiki if nothing else.

Well to me the sarcasm just shows wrong deductions :/ Even if they considered blacks inferior they still didn't enslave them due to race, otherwise they wouldn't have had White slaves and you are saying they went to African, not cause it was cheaper and easier but 'cause they had black people there.

Do you seriously not see how considering blacks to be inferior is a critical social and cultural enabler to enslaving them?

You want this to be about the simplified logistics of going to Africa, but how can you institutionalize enslaving anyone without first dehumanizing them, treating them as inferior?

You act as if it was "convenient", but chaining a human being to the inside of a boat and taking them to a life of slavery first requires you to see that person as an animal of burden. That is racism, and doing it to blacks in numbers that were orders of magnitude higher than how it was done to Scottish penal laborers makes it "convenient" in exactly one way: Its easier to treat them like shit because they were black and nobody thought they even deserved a trial.

And it wasn't based on race it was based on convenience but a lot of people where racist then especially towards their slaves if they where black. And by talking about the African Slavery I have to talk about its origins which I have stated repeatedly was due to convenience.

Wait, wait, hold on, I have to get my head around this. Black slavery had nothing to do with race, but a lot of slave owners were racists towards their slaves, because...they were black.

.....

what the fuck?

Di you ever, EVER pause to think, for one moment, that the black slave trade might have been a profitable institution because by and large slave owners didn't have an issue with buying other human beings, just as long as they're black?

You seem to think this was just some game of monopoly with pieces moving across the board. The slave trade, as an economic institution, existed because of racism. Because slave owners found it ok with buying black people. If they didn't, there would have been no slave trade. You can't have slavery without a willingness to enslave. Racism is what provided that willingness. Which is why black slaves in this country faaaaar outnumbered white ones.

The only reason the sale of human beings was capable of being maintained is because the buyers did see them as people.

And they did not see them as people, because they were black.

WOW I had no idea that the United States encompassed Ancient Rome, all of Africa, much of Europe and Russia. thx 4 educudjelmating me.
Sorry, whoops, forgot for a second to remember that there is no history before 1776 and outside of the US. D'oh!
Wait, are you actually now going to blather that the Holocaust too had nothing to do with race? Or is just the fact that I mentioned the Holocaust somehow damaging to my credibility? Do explain.
"To back my point up I'll just slide a reference to Nazism in here"
"Smooth"

I have pointed out that racism spread and began to play a bigger role but the main reason African's where enslaved was due to the fact it was easier.

You don't "point this out," you just keep asserting it blindly and still without an inch of support.


I already gave sources about White slaves, you wants moar?

Wow, there were white slaves, therefore enslaving black people isn't racist!

Also, I have black friends! I'm not racist too!

I already gave sources about White slaves, you wants moar?

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Surely you'll believe Wiki if nothing else.

Do you read your own links? The whites were in indentured servitude, bad and barbaric, but not the same as slavery as it was applied to blacks.

And they eventually codified the importance of racism in slavery:

From YOUR link:

"By the 18th century, court rulings established the racial basis of the American incarnation of slavery to apply chiefly to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans"

So, if it started out as penal colonies and indentured servitude, when it got around to being slavery, it was set on blacks, via a racial basis.

Do you seriously not see how considering blacks to be inferior is a critical social and cultural enabler to enslaving them?

You want this to be about the simplified logistics of going to Africa, but how can you institutionalize enslaving anyone without first dehumanizing them, treating them as inferior?

You act as if it was "convenient", but chaining a human being to the inside of a boat and taking them to a life of slavery first requires you to see that person as an animal of burden. That is racism, and doing it to blacks in numbers that were orders of magnitude higher than how it was done to Scottish penal laborers makes it "convenient" in exactly one way: Its easier to treat them like shit because they were black and nobody thought they even deserved a trial.

Blacks where enslaved due to convenience what followed after was the dehumanisation, and every slave where treated as inferior, race was no boundary to that.
Your point in that last paragraph appears to be that enslaving people is racist, no bars on race since it happened to all races. It was easier to treat them like shit 'cause they where property of their owners, because in the eyes of the law they where inferior.
And part of the reason why they where en slaved was because African militaries where too inferior to stop the invasions of Europeans.

Sorry, whoops, forgot for a second to remember that there is no history before 1776 and outside of the US. D'oh!

You appear to have overlooked that this discussion was specific to slavery IN THE UNITED STATES and how it impacted the viewpoints of people like Malcolm X. D'oh!

Sorry, whoops, forgot for a second to remember that there is no history before 1776 and outside of the US. D'oh!

Not history relevant to the discussion at hand. Riddle me this, which country did Malcom X live in?

1. Ancient Rome
2. Tsarist Russia
3. United States of America
4. Ottoman Empire
5. Wonderland

You have a 20% chance of getting right if you just blindly guess so you really have no excuse for flunking.


"To back my point up I'll just slide a reference to Nazism in here"
"Smooth"

Suggesting that slavery of black people had nothing to do with racism is EXACTLY like saying that the Holocaust had nothing to do with racism.

Doesn't harm my credibility one bit but thanks for playing. :)

Do you read your own links? The whites were in indentured servitude, bad and barbaric, but not the same as slavery as it was applied to blacks.

And they eventually codified the importance of racism in slavery:

From YOUR link:

"By the 18th century, court rulings established the racial basis of the American incarnation of slavery to apply chiefly to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans"

So, if it started out as penal colonies and indentured servitude, when it got around to being slavery, it was set on blacks, via a racial basis.

As I pointed out earlier Indentured servants where treated just like slaves but under a different name. And racism was mainly set on blacks 'cause it was more convenient to get black slaves via conquest and trade as opposed to white slaves.

Blacks where enslaved due to convenience what followed after was the dehumanisation,

did it EVER occur to you that the reason that africa was a viable slave route was directly because of people's willingness to accept blacks as less than human?

No? Not even once? Not even a little bit?

Didn't think so.

Yeah Okay I'm bored now, anyone wants to continue this debate later PM me or telegram me...

I mean, I understand arguing about the egg being before the chicken, but you're not even arguing the egg.

You're arguing the whole fucking omelet.

did it EVER occur to you that the reason that africa was a viable slave route was directly because of people's willingness to accept blacks as less than human?

No? Not even once? Not even a little bit?

Didn't think so.

No kinda cause Africa was a viable slave route due to the fact that black Africans didn't have a military capable of competing and Cause of Africa's location was convenient.
And as I said last post I'm leaving for a while, wanna continue pm me.

I mean, I understand arguing about the egg being before the chicken, but you're not even arguing the egg.

You're arguing the whole fucking omelet.

Eggs have nothing to do with omelettes or, for that matter, chickens. After all, alligators and fish lay eggs too! GOTCHA!

Blacks where enslaved due to convenience what followed after was the dehumanisation, and every slave where treated as inferior, race was no boundary to that.

Ah, so enslaving them to begin with wasn't dehumanizing, just keeping them as slaves.

Did you read your own link?

"By the 18th century, court rulings established the racial basis of the American incarnation of slavery to apply chiefly to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans".

So, by the 1700's (and many slaves were taken after that), it was even a matter of official policy that it was race based. But because a tiny fraction of what you call "slaves" were indentured servants and penal laborers, its the same as what happend to blacks, right?


Your point in that last paragraph appears to be that enslaving people is racist, no bars on race since it happened to all races.

Still thinking penal colonies and indentured servitude are the same as slavery? Or why for hundreds of years, it only applied to blacks? Oh, wait, that racism doesn't matter, because it didn't start that way, and blacks were closer...


It was easier to treat them like shit 'cause they where property of their owners, because in the eyes of the law they where inferior.

Yes, like the many slavery laws that specifically and explicitly applied only to Blacks and the occasional native.


And part of the reason why they where en slaved was because African militaries where too inferior to stop the invasions of Europeans.

Of course, because the Europeans weren't invading one another all the time. England and France didn't hold one another's ground for 116 years or more...

But hey, poor dumb blacks, get an industrialized army if you don't want to be slaves. You were just convenient and we never said you were less then whites...except the many, many times we did, in law, in verse, in speech, in policy...

No kinda cause Africa was a viable slave route due to the fact that black Africans didn't have a military capable of competing and Cause of Africa's location was convenient.

*sigh* Slave traders were businessmen. It was a business that is repugnant to the very of humanity, but it was a business. Slave traders were such because they made money doing it.

They knew they could sell them. And the reason they were able to sell them was because of the inherent racism of the society.

And as I said last post I'm leaving for a while, wanna continue pm me.

I don't waste my time arguing with children in private. The proper response to ignorance is to expose it to the public ridicule.

As I pointed out earlier Indentured servants where treated just like slaves but under a different name. And racism was mainly set on blacks 'cause it was more convenient to get black slaves via conquest and trade as opposed to white slaves.

Of course. Indentured servants were killed, maimed, and tortured in the same rates as black people. It just happend to the blacks more because they were more convenient to get.

The guy didn't rape that woman because he hates women. She just lived next door. So, you know, its not really about misogyny. Its about convenience.

I nearly spit out my milk on that last one.

Milk, then eggs...you aren't eating some kind of meat, are you? Because you can't have all of that at once. I think. I'm not sure how it works with you people.

Is it true you have to have two refrigerators? I have two refrigerators, but because I'm a big fat guy, not because I want to honor a covenant with God.







Okay, wait, what about Malcolm X now?

Okay, wait, what about Malcolm X now?

We could debate the way Malcolm liked his eggs, I say sunny side up.

We could debate the way Malcolm liked his eggs, I say sunny side up.

With the white plain for all to see? I think not. I think he preferred them scrambled. Using brown eggs of course.

We could debate the way Malcolm liked his eggs, I say sunny side up.

See, now you have to post some kind of proof from wiki.

With the white plain for all to see? I think not. I think he preferred them scrambled. Using brown eggs of course.

Scrambling is integration. I thought he was against that.

Or was that just in the beginning?

I saw a photo once of him with a rifle. I like rifles. I'm going to go find that picture and see what kind of rifle it was.

EDIT: My fault, it was a carbine, an M-1 carbine. Chambers .30 short, I think . I dunno. Looks cool, though.

I like Malcolm X. Own a an old tape of some ABC special made after he died. I watch it every now and then. Still haven't finished his autobiography, though. Only got through the first 80 pages and then Against the Day came out, then I went to Ireland and then a baby came out of my wife. I have to get back to that biography.

I like Malcolm X. Own a an old tape of some ABC special made after he died. I watch it every now and then. Still haven't finished his autobiography, though. Only got through the first 80 pages and then Against the Day came out, then I went to Ireland and then a baby came out of my wife. I have to get back to that biography.

I knew it. I knew it was something in the Irish food that makes them breed so much!

Next time, bring MRE's or something. And bottled water. And wash your hand a lot and don't sit on the toilet seats.

I knew it. I knew it was something in the Irish food that makes them breed so much!

Next time, bring MRE's or something. And bottled water. And wash your hand a lot and don't sit on the toilet seats.

Come to think of it... every single one of the condoms we packed away spontaneously combusted the moment our plane touched down.

Come to think of it... every single one of the condoms we packed away spontaneously combusted the moment our plane touched down.

Better on the runway than later...

Better on the runway than later...

Try telling that to airport security.

Oh, wait... what?... thread?...

Yeah. American Slavery. Pretty much a high point in the history of racism.

Try telling that to airport security.

Oh, wait... what?... thread?...

Yeah. American Slavery. Pretty much a high point in the history of racism.

No, it was convenience, apparently. You know, the same way you choose your gym.

It would've been all white on white, right, except the negroes didn't have armies to defend themselves, and it was just all around easier.

I wonder...did Malcolm X really buy into the whole Yakub thing, the "Big Head Scientist"?

No, it was convenience, apparently. You know, the same way you choose your gym.

It would've been all white on white, right, except the negroes didn't have armies to defend themselves, and it was just all around easier.

I wonder...did Malcolm X really buy into the whole Yakub thing, the "Big Head Scientist"?

Well, good thing whites were around to let black people know that slavery wasn't an ideal lifestyle choice. Otherwise they would have still been out there, happily tending the plantations.

Great guy, and well-intentioned. Maybe a little nuts around the edges, but I really really like the fire of a spirited rebel like The X. Trot out what ever character flaws you want, but I pretty much thought his politics made sense in the main.,

Great guy, and well-intentioned. Maybe a little nuts around the edges, but I really really like the fire of a spirited rebel like The X. Trot out what ever character flaws you want, but I pretty much thought his politics made sense in the main.,

Pre-break from the Nation or Post? Or parts that he carried through?

Malcolm did change his views. He was in the NOI, under Elijah Muhammad, but later split from it, to become a Sunni Muslim. Read his autobiography.

Malcolm did change his views. He was in the NOI, under Elijah Muhammad, but later split from it, to become a Sunni Muslim. Read his autobiography.

I wonder if, even when in the Nation, if he really believed the theology of it, about whites being genetically engineered by some insane ancient scientist. I guess its not any wilder than some other religions.

I don't understad. People have a positive image of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, excusing their racism and slave owning (in the case of the former) because they simply grew up with that kind of mentality, children of their time etc. I beleive the consensus is that the good they did outweigh their flaws no matter how repulsive those flaws were.

So why isnt this same understanding afforded to Malcolm X? As people have pointed out, his father was killed by supremacists. It's not like white America at the time gave him a genuine opportunity to succeed, it is documented that even though he was the best student in his class his teacher told him that his goal of becoming a lawyer was an unrealistic goal for a "you know what". Also, dont forget that he grew up in a time of racial violence, segregation and outright bigotry. Anyone who thinks that he shouldnt have harbored such bitterness towards the white establishment is delusional. Yet people still want to focus on his hatred for whites (which he eventually let go of) rather than the good he did for the African American community by encouraging them to have self respect and assert their identity. He was a genuine man who was willing to put his own life on the line to stand up for what he beleived was right and deserves far more respect than he is given.

Malcolm did change his views. He was in the NOI, under Elijah Muhammad, but later split from it, to become a Sunni Muslim. Read his autobiography.


Shush you, with your facts. He's clearly all scarey and darkish.

One sequel too many I think.

I wonder...did Malcolm X really buy into the whole Yakub thing, the "Big Head Scientist"?

Long time since I read his autobiography, but I believe he experienced what the army chaplains call a 'foxhole conversion'. (ie "I'm in trouble right now, I'll grab hold of anything that offers me hope.")

That being so, he would have believed very strongly in anything and everything the NoI told him. Like most foxhole converts, he later reassessed it.

While I've always regarded Malcolm X in a kind of awe in my mind, I never had knowledge to justify it. It was more of an awe one experiences at the formation of a massive tornado or something intensely interesting and explosive. It's obvious to me now that he is a very misunderstood figure, if only evidenced by some of the posts in this thread. I'm in the middle of "The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley", which was spurred on after I watched Spike Lee's fabulous depiction, "Malcolm X".

I don't understad. People have a positive image of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, excusing their racism and slave owning (in the case of the former) because they simply grew up with that kind of mentality, children of their time etc. I beleive the consensus is that the good they did outweigh their flaws no matter how repulsive those flaws were.

So why isnt this same understanding afforded to Malcolm X?

I can see how he was seen as a threat to the white population in the 1950's. He was simply a threat to all that was so tenderly "American" at that time: Christian, Caucasian, Moderate, Ordered. The reason why he seems to remain as a threat even to this day escapes me. It must be ignorance on many parts, not ignorance in an insulting sense per se but a misunderstanding of Malcolm X the person. The Autobiography will do wonders to anyone, a very easy read, and the movie is even more entertaining. One man's opinion: while Martin Luther King may have been the most important man in America's progress toward civil rights, Malcolm X was the single most important person to the finding of identity of African-Americans. Not even as a black man, I can see this, but as a minority I can also see how he grew out of his immature and unfair hatred of white people to graduate into a diplomatic, caring, dynamic leader of all American people.

The day of his assassination should be a national holiday.

While I've always regarded Malcolm X in a kind of awe in my mind, I never had knowledge to justify it. It was more of an awe one experiences at the formation of a massive tornado or something intensely interesting and explosive. It's obvious to me now that he is a very misunderstood figure, if only evidenced by some of the posts in this thread. I'm in the middle of "The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley", which was spurred on after I watched Spike Lee's fabulous depiction, "Malcolm X".



I can see how he was seen as a threat to the white population in the 1950's. He was simply a threat to all that was so tenderly "American" at that time: Christian, Caucasian, Moderate, Ordered. The reason why he seems to remain as a threat even to this day escapes me. It must be ignorance on many parts, not ignorance in an insulting sense per se but a misunderstanding of Malcolm X the person. The Autobiography will do wonders to anyone, a very easy read, and the movie is even more entertaining. One man's opinion: while Martin Luther King may have been the most important man in America's progress toward civil rights, Malcolm X was the single most important person to the finding of identity of African-Americans. Not even as a black man, I can see this, but as a minority I can also see how he grew out of his immature and unfair hatred of white people to graduate into a diplomatic, caring, dynamic leader of all American people.

The day of his assassination should be a national holiday.

I like you.

When I learnt about American Civil rights the focus of the curriculum was mostly towards Martin Luther King and the mainstream movement, while Malcolm X and the nation of Islam was only given a superficial glance so I didnt learn much about them.

Lately I've been doing some research on Malcolm X just out of idle curiosity and have found him to be a highly interesting figure. I can certainly understand the diversity of opinions regarding this man, both positive and negative and I was wondering what your views are. How influential was he to the civil rights movement? Was he a hateful bigot or a courageous leader who stood up to protect African Americans? Should his later renunciation of his hate towards all whites earn him forgiveness for influencing multitudes of African Americans into adopting a black supremist attitude? And lastly is there any American on this forum who is old enough to rememberhim?

Assuming that Malcom X was sincere he should be forgive. Who has not acted like a jerk at some point in their life? The racist Malcom X was an a**hole.