Do you believe Malcolm X's comments about White Liberals have merit today?

[xsited1]

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These "leaders" sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These "leaders" are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders.

malcolm x - speeches > god's judgement of white america (the chickens come home to roost)

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't agree with Malcom X as a rule. He is just as violent as any thug and just as hateful as a Neo-Nazi.

 

[xsited1]

I don't agree with Malcom X as a rule. He is just as violent as any thug and just as hateful as a Neo-Nazi.

I usually don't, either, but what he says about conservatives and liberals has some truth to it.

 

[KittenKoder]

I usually don't, either, but what he says about conservatives and liberals has some truth to it.

Even the most insane and vile humans know something about some things.

 

[DiveCon]

malcolm x - speeches > god's judgement of white america (the chickens come home to roost)

when you factor in that was 45 years ago, and how much the lay of the political ground has changed since then, i would say its likely not very accurate at all
will there be some that are still like it was 45 years ago? no doubt, but people have changed in those years

 

[Esta_PG]

Well, if you change some of the wording and place it in today (after the ideological shift in the South and North Easts), he's effectively talking about two parties jockeying for token support of different minorities without actually doing much for them.

In reality, both the parties are rich white parties. The vast majority of the Republican leadership is rich white people. The vast majority of the Democratic leadership is rich white people. 20 years ago, I would have said rich white men.

It's taken just under 100 years for women to get to just shy of 20% representation in both chambers of congress. The games on capitol hill are still largely games about balancing constituencies. The sheen of Ronald Reagan has faded from many Hispanics minds, and the immigration stance taken by most of the GOP (although not really McCain, interestingly enough) has pretty much scared away a generation; Obama has pretty much clinched the African American vote for a generation (although turnout will vary depending on who runs); the LGBT voters (who probably vote more than any other minority, when it gets down to it) doesn't really have a party (anti-gay marriage vs. not anti-gay marriage, but not really for it either) that fits it's "issue" well, but many LGBT individuals breakdown along more liberal lines on other issues. If either party were to man up and actually fight for LGBT rights, they'd have a big strong politically active group on their hands.

The trouble is, nobody has really done anything to win these groups. Latinos fled to the Democrats because the Republicans started taking a contrary stance to the Latino voting core. African Americans were already Democrats, but now we actually voted in big numbers. LGBT voted for Obama because they tend to lean socially liberal, not because he's going to be an ally for LGBT voters.

One of the big problems with the plurality system is that many voters aren't faced with a decision between a candidate whom they support in every way, or in a very important way, or in a way meaningful to them as a citizen and somebody else. Candidates don't have to address every issue. If for example, both candidates (MC and BO) agree (anti-gay marriage) or both candidates just ignore something (war on poverty a la Edwards) it doesn't become a factor.

They're looking at two candidates, and frequently neither has much of an opinion or REAL plan to improve your life, be you black, Latino, Asian, LGBT. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils rather than choosing to put your support behind someone who will really fight for your personal beliefs. That candidate doesn't run in this system because they'd get eaten alive. For all the problems of proportional representation, voters turn out in MUCH higher numbers, and I'd bet it's because they really can find a party that truly represents them, or at least represents them in an issue that's very important to them. Many parties in Europe are started that way. They are in support of an issue, and as a party determine their position on every other issue. If there's a big enough rift over a 2nd issue, they split, and so on. Makes for lots of parties and a need for alliances, but it does allow the actual voice of citizens often frozen out of the process to be heard. Gays, the poor, political minorities, even ethnic minorities (although ethnic parties is a whole other can of worms) all get a political voice to force issues that large, 2 or 3 part states can pretty much ignore.

As a man for whom gay marriage would be nearly and instant "I will vote for you" (I mean, I would have voted for either Obama OR McCain if they held that position, because I think very little separated them when I tallied up what I agreed and disagreed with them about), I had no candidate this election cycle. I rarely feel good about my votes, or feel that my votes will bring about new, positive things in my life. So in a sense, I think Malcolm X is right. Politicians succeed less by being the candidate who will help you than by being the candidate whose policies will hurt you the least. That's a very dangerous thing, too. It freezes people out of the process and makes them not identify as Americans. Even if I don't feel full of national fervor and the belief that I am changing my life with my vote, I at least feel connected. It must be hard to be so disillusioned that you wouldn't vote.

I've veered largely off-topic. Apologies. I hope I got things back towards the end.

 

[Ravi]

Obama as pigskin.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't agree with Malcom X as a rule. He is just as violent as any thug and just as hateful as a Neo-Nazi.

You are aware he renounced violence before he was murdered by his own people?

 

[Annie]

You are aware he renounced violence before he was murdered by his own people?

Funny that we agree on this. Malcolm X is a figure I'd like to study more. From the little I've read he seems to have seriously evolved in his thinking; from victim to reactionary to leader to recognizing that leadership involves more than following an old path. Before being assassinated he seemed to be veering towards nearly a Buddhist path, though to assume that was going to be the last stage in someone that complex? Who knows?

I suppose one could read anything into his history, like too many others time fell short.

 

[jillian]

You are aware he renounced violence before he was murdered by his own people?

It's what got him killed. But in truth, Malcolm X's existence, in large part, made Martin Luther King Jr's inroads possible by making King the "acceptable" face of the civil rights movement.

 

[Sunni Man]

I grew up and lived in the Conservative south most of my life.

A few years ago I moved to New England, the heart of Liberalism.

I have been astounded at how racist the so called Liberal people here are.

I have heard more racist talk in one year, than I ever heard in all of those years in the Conservative south

 

[Sunni Man]

Funny that we agree on this. Malcolm X is a figure I'd like to study more. From the little I've read he seems to have seriously evolved in his thinking; from victim to reactionary to leader to recognizing that leadership involves more than following an old path. Before being assassinated he seemed to be veering towards nearly a Buddhist path, though to assume that was going to be the last stage in someone that complex? Who knows?

Malcolm X abandoned the violent religious cult he was involved in and joined the "Religion of Peace", true Islam at the end of his life.

 

[editec]

It's what got him killed. But in truth, Malcolm X's existence, in large part, made Martin Luther King Jr's inroads possible by making King the "acceptable" face of the civil rights movement.

I think the thing that got both X and MLK killed was when they started talking about ECONOMIC JUSTICE.

They were okay and no threat when they were advancing the cause of enfranchising Blacks so they could vote.

Blacks voting is no threat to the power structure.

But economic justice?

Yeah, that's what got both of them killed, I think.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think the thing that got both X and MLK killed was when they started talking about ECONOMIC JUSTICE.

They were okay and no threat when they were advancing the cause of enfranchising Blacks so they could vote.

Blacks voting is no threat to the power structure.

But economic justice?

Yeah, that's what got both of them killed, I think.

You are aware Malcolm X was killed by the religious group he left after embarressing its leader for his stupidity and hypocrisy? As for Martin Luther King, there is no compelling evidence the Government had him killed, though I do not doubt some rogue element may have.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Malcolm X abandoned the violent religious cult he was involved in and joined the "Religion of Peace", true Islam at the end of his life.

Historically correct though Islam is not a "Religion of Peace".

 

[sky dancer]

I think Malcolm X's statement still holds true. Beware of those who claim; "I'm not racist."

Malcolm X is a fascinating topic. I remember him. He scared the crap out of white people.

 

[editec]

You are aware Malcolm X was killed by the religious group he left after embarressing its leader for his stupidity and hypocrisy?

Yes, so the story goes.

As for Martin Luther King, there is no compelling evidence the Government had him killed, though I do not doubt some rogue element may have.

I didn't say the government had him killed...you did.

 

[sky dancer]

Malcolm X opposed American imperialism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are aware Malcolm X was killed by the religious group he left after embarressing its leader for his stupidity and hypocrisy?

Yes, so the story goes.



I didn't say the government had him killed...you did.

You IMPLIED it, as you are continuing to imply Malcolm X was.

The evidence as to who killed Malcolm X and why is pretty compelling.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Malcolm X opposed American imperialism.

America is not now nor was it then Imperialistic.