Err...I know the article is old. However, I was just searching for similarities between the two black icons, their influence, the impact they were able to make during their sojourn on this planet and their legacies. Well, I'm from Malcolm's "School of Thought" and I'm unapologetic about it. You should know that by now, due to the "X" at the back of all my handles. I can relate to Malcolm more - just as I relate to Steven Biko more in lieu of Nelson Mandela.

Enjoy!

(CNN) -- The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was leaving a news conference one afternoon when a tall man with a coppery complexion stepped out of the crowd and blocked his path.

Malcolm X, the African-American Muslim leader who once called King "Rev. Dr. Chicken-wing," extended his hand and smiled.

"Well, Malcolm, good to see you," King said after taking Malcolm X's hand.

"Good to see you," Malcolm X replied as both men broke into huge grins while a gaggle of photographers snapped pictures of their only meeting.

That encounter on March 26, 1964, lasted only a minute. But a photo of that meeting has tantalized scholars and supporters of both men for more than 45 years.

As the 85th birthday of Malcolm X is marked on Wednesday, history has freeze-framed him as the angry black separatist who saw whites as blue-eyed devils.

Yet near the end of his life, Malcolm X was becoming more like King -- and King was becoming more like him.

"In the last years of their lives, they were starting to move toward one another," says David Howard-Pitney, who recounted the Capitol Hill meeting in his book "Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 1960s."

"While Malcolm is moderating from his earlier position, King is becoming more militant," Pitney says.

Malcolm X was reaching out to King even before he broke away from the Nation of Islam and embraced Sunni Islam after a pilgrimage to Mecca, says Andrew Young, a member of King's inner circle at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the civil rights group King headed.

Read more about the faith angles on the news at the CNN Belief Blog

"Even before his trip to Mecca, Malcolm used to come by the SCLC's office," Young says. "Unfortunately, Dr. King was never there when he came."

How Malcolm became a 'cultural revolutionary'

Though the men met only once, they had been portrayed as foes in the minds of the American public for years.

Malcolm X burst onto the national scene in 1959 when he and the Nation of Islam were featured in a documentary, "The Hate That Hate Produced."

He became the Nation of Islam's most visible spokesman from his base in New York. While King preached about his dream, Malcolm X said blacks were trapped in a nightmare.

"It was his critique of America from the bottom up that was so shocking," says Young. "He was a young man with a Ph.D mind, but he was put out of school. He educated himself in jail by reading the dictionary."

Malcolm X's harsh rhetoric helped "decolonize" black people's minds by teaching them to be proud of their African heritage, says James Cone, author of "Martin & Malcolm & America."

"King was a political revolutionary. Malcolm was a cultural revolutionary," Cone says. "Malcolm changed how black people thought about themselves. Before Malcolm came along, we were all Negroes. After Malcolm, he helped us become black."

Despite their differences, both King and Malcolm X's political activism flowed from the same source, says Pitney, the civil rights scholar.

"They were fundamentally spiritual men," Pitney says. "While we remember them for their social and political activism, they were religious and spiritual at their core."

Malcolm moves toward Martin

Malcolm X, though, wanted to be more than a cultural revolutionary. He broke with the Nation of Islam in March 1964 and announced plans to start a black political organization.

He reached out to King and other civil rights leaders. In 1965, Malcolm X traveled to Selma, Alabama, where King was leading a campaign, to offer support.

"Brother Malcolm was definitely making an outreach to some civil rights leaders," says A. Peter Bailey, an original member of the group Malcolm X founded, The Organization of Afro-American Unity, and a friend of Malcolm X. "He believed that the one who would be most responsive would be Dr. King."

The Muslim leader had developed an appreciation for King, Bailey says.

"He had come to believe that King believed in what he was doing," Bailey says. "He believed in nonviolence; it just wasn't a show. He developed respect for him. I heard him say you have to give respect to men who put their lives on the line."

Malcolm X may have been willing to join the civil rights cause. But he never subscribed to nonviolence or abandoned his Muslim faith, Bailey says.

"The whole idea that he had become a token integrationist at the end of his life -- that's a bunch of jive," Bailey says.

Martin moves toward Malcolm

King's movement toward Malcolm began as he shifted the civil rights movement to the North, friends and scholars say.

During the last three years of his life, King became more radical. He talked about eliminating poverty and providing a guaranteed annual income for all U.S. citizens. He came out against the Vietnam War, and said American society would have to be restructured.

He also veered into Malcolm X's rhetorical territory when he started preaching black self-pride, says Pitney.

"King is photographed a number of times in 1967 and '68 wearing a 'Black is Beautiful' button,' " Pitney says.

A year before King died, the journalist David Halberstam even told him he "sounded like a nonviolent Malcolm X," Pitney says.

In the epic PBS civil rights series, Coretta Scott King, the civil rights leader's widow, said King never took Malcolm X's biting criticisms of his nonviolence stance personally.

"I know Martin had the greatest respect for Malcolm ...," she said. "I think that if Malcolm had lived, at some point the two would have come closer together and would have been a very strong force."

Young, King's close aide, says King had become more militant near the end of his life.

"It was more radical to deal with poverty than to deal with segregation so, in that sense, it's true," Young says. "But Dr. King never wavered in his commitment to nonviolence. In fact, he was getting stronger in his commitment to nonviolence. It was a more militant nonviolence."

Why they endure

Malcolm X and King never had the chance, though, to explore an alliance.

Malcolm X was assassinated in Harlem in 1965. King was murdered three years later.

Both were 39 at the time of their death. Both had been abandoned by former supporters. And both left virtually no money to their wives and young children because they refused to profit from their activism.

The photo of their meeting endures. It was taken because both men happened to be in the Capitol building that day to listen to politicians debate the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would later pass.

Author Cone says the picture endures because both men embody the " 'yin and yang' deep in the soul of black America."

Even as King was changing America, he also realized that Malcolm X was changing him.

Cone says with a chuckle:

"Martin Luther King once said that when he listened to Malcolm speak, even he got angry."
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/19/Malcolmx.king/

Honestly, I don't think Malcom X was about "integration" the way the civil rights movement went about it. Being that it was hijacked by the Jews and the Jews ended up becoming the main beneficiaries of a movement, that had a "black face" and was more of a black struggle, than anything else. However, that doesn't take anything away from MLK. He was just a tad bit naive and never had a back-up plan. Hence why "integration" ended up destroying almost all the black institutions that were built during segregation - and crack epidemic induced by "integration" destroyed and has continued to destroy generations of black folks.

That said: I think the common ground between these black icons is one area that should be explored more. They both stood for the survival/upliftment of the black race/folks - using different approaches. Malcolm X did write MLK about the "common ground" and the need to explore it, while he was alive. See: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/letter_malcolmxtoking.pdf

Their Legacies:

MLK is undoubtly the media's darling (even in death) and the most celebrated out of the two. While Malcolm X remains the "unsung hero," with an image (even in death) that's too "dark"/"black" for TV and what the white control media represents. Kind of like Steven Bantu Biko vs. Nelson Mandela. However, that doesn't negate the fact that Malcolm X embodied an ideology, more people around the world can relate to. The same way Steven Biko fostered an ideology a lot of people can relate to, despite Nelson Mandela being the media's darling. And in Malcom X's case - it isn't just black folks. It cuts across all races of people, especially people against the establishment/status-quo. I know of a group called, "Sons of Malcolm" in the UK, and the leader, Sukant Chandan, is of Asian ancestry. Just as a lot of folks, who're part of that group/ideology are also of non-black ancestry.

Also, MLK was the educated one with an oratory gift that's second to none. However, his ministry didn't go beyond Ebenezer Baptist church and America, at large. But Malcolm X was the super-intelligent one and he was able to communicate with more people around the world. He also did travel to different countries across Africa - and he was adored by the people over there. He was a revolutionary and he spoke directly to the people. He was never a dreamer and an idealist - he was a non-comformist and a realist.

Err...should I say Malcolm X also did influence MLK later on, before MLK's demise. Well, MLK and people around him alluded to this.

Finally, not taking anything away from either of them. They are both black icons and they both paved the way for more than three generations of black folks. Their struggles gave black folks around the world hope. Their struggles also led to the anti-colonial movements across Africa. Created awareness across black diaspora - from Brazil to London, to Paris, to Toronto etc.. Yes, civil rights movement also birthed feminism and gender equality - so women also owe it to MLK.

Salute to the two icons!!!

Respect.


I dove my cap for the icons of the black race,
All the icons right from home-front to diaspora,
Great names. They fought a good fight for us all,
They deserve good memorial from all of us today.


How about Harriet Tubman and the history of the slave trade? I'm not whining, I trust your prowess.

ladionline: Respect.

I dove my cap for the icons of the black race,
All the icons right from home-front to diaspora,
Great names. They fought a good fight for us all,
They deserve good memorial from all of us today.

How about Harriet Tubman and the history of the slave trade? I'm not whining, I trust your prowess.

Personally, I'd call Mama Harriet Tubman the greatest black woman ever. That's just my opinion. I love and adore her so much, I tatted a quote from her on my body.

However, it's just a pity that we as black people don't really know who our heroes are. We always allow the media and other people to choose our heroes for us. Here is a woman who went against all odds risking her life, to free slaves, regardless of gender. But she's yet to be immortalised. We hear more about what Rosa Parks did (not taking anything away from the significance of what she did) than a Harriet Tubman who was a revolutionary and a brave heart.

Harriet Tubman, Queen Mother Moore and even Assata Shakur deserve more respect from black folks.

Great overview there Shymexx.

Like you, I think both leaders shared a overarching strategy in relation to the emancipation of Black folk, even though the tactics employed at various junctions differed radically. The problem with our generation, I think, is that we've allowed ourselves to become saddled with dogma, through the amplification of "considered differences", rather than similarities which underscored the clarity of focus they both brought to bear.

This myopia which is ever evident in the comparative studies advanced by many commentators, including some of our "progressive organisations", today, ultimately leads to the "paralysis of analysis" MLK cautioned against. Saddled with the politics of the past, we allow ourselves to become bogged down and shackled by truisms in the face of constant change.

Far worse still is that the social ills, which necessitated the struggles of that period and continue to loom large today, are now only addressed through expressions of outrage - and often only on social media. We regal in a state of palpable apathy as though there is any credible account of an instance where power concedes authority without a fight. The simple truth is; Malcolm and Martin will be filled with eternal disquiet if ever they were granted to be granted a view into the present, and we know it.

Against this background, your admonishment on finding common ground between both icons really needs to be heeded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqaaWviovPs

This speech was given after Dr King's "Poor People's Campaign" which kicked off in 1967. Having recognised that "the decade of 1955 to 1965, with its constructive elements, misled us", Dr King went on to acknowledge that

everyone underestimated the amount of rage Negroes were suppressing, and the amount of bigotry the white majority was disguising". Leading up to the year he was killed, Dr King remarked that "[we] must formulate a program, and we must fashion the new tactics which do not count on government good will, but instead serve to compel unwilling authorities to yield to the mandates of justice

Reading between the lines, it was clear that civil disobedience on a grand scale was to about take the place of non-violence protests, something the authorities feared very much.

Note: the excerpt provided above was taken from 'Bearing the Cross'.
Garrow, D. J. (1986). Bearing the cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. New York: Perennial Classics.

eGuerrilla: Great overview there Shymexx.

Like you, I think both leaders shared a overarching strategy in relation to the emancipation of Black folk, even though the tactics employed at various junctions differed radically. The problem with our generation, I think, is that we've allowed ourselves to become saddled with dogma, through the amplification of "considered differences", rather than similarities which underscored the clarity of focus they both brought to bear.

This myopia which is ever evident in the comparative studies advanced by many commentators, including some of our "progressive organisations", today, ultimately leads to the "paralysis of analysis" MLK cautioned against. Saddled with the politics of the past, we allow ourselves to become bogged down and shackled by truisms in the face of constant change.

Far worse still is that the social ills, which necessitated the struggles of that period and continue to loom large today, are now only addressed through expressions of outrage - and often only on social media. We regal in a state of palpable apathy as though there is any credible account of an instance where power concedes authority without a fight. The simple truth is; Malcolm and Martin will be filled with eternal disquiet if ever they were granted to be granted a view into the present, and we know it.

Against this background, your admonishment on finding common ground between both icons really needs to be heeded.

I concur and you nailed it.

@ the text in bold. I think we as black people operate better when the odds are against us. Act of surviving against all odds. However, when it comes to taking the initiative and becoming proactive, we'd rather let others dictate our destiny, while we sit idly and watch. But we're always quick to play the "race card" and the "blame game" - despite our lack of foresight.

Lastly, the common ground would always be the survival of the black race and how we must make other races of people respect us - and give us our "just due" for our immense contributions to humanity. But in doing that, we also need to explore the undeniable and glaring mistakes of MLK and civil rights movement. And the shortcomings of Malcolm X. I'm sure if both icons were alive today, they would have accepted their mistakes and tried to correct them. Just as W. E. B. Du Bois did at the latter stage of his life. We also need to consider these things as we continue in the fight for the emancipation of the black race.

What do you think, Sir?

shymexx:

I concur and you nailed it.

@ the text in bold. I think we as black people operate better when the odds are against us. Act of surviving against all odds. However, when it comes to taking the initiative and becoming proactive, we'd rather let others dictate our destiny, while we sit idly and watch. But we're always quick to play the "race card" and the "blame game" - despite our lack of foresight.

Lastly, the common ground would always be the survival of the black race and how we must make other races of people respect us - and give us our "just due" for our immense contributions to humanity. But in doing that, we also need to explore the undeniable and glaring mistakes of MLK and civil rights movement. And the shortcomings of Malcolm X. I'm sure if both icons were alive today, they would have accepted their mistakes and tried to correct them. Just as W. E. B. Du Bois did at the latter stage of his life. We also need to consider these things as we continue in the fight for the emancipation of the black race.

What do you think, Sir?

Bruv, I sometimes wonder whether Malcolm and Martin could ever have attained the heights they reached if they had adopted a different set of tactics. My reason for canvassing this view is based on two broad assumptions:
(1) that our "struggle", which is essentially a model for engendering social change, is itself laden with contradictions.
(2) that even with the best will in the world, all individuals are subject to certain inherent limitations.

Now while there is much to be gained from reflecting on the valuable lessons drawn from that period, I think it is important that we never lose sight of the bigger picture. After all, because the "struggle" ultimately resides on a continuum, there is nothing to say the critiques we derive today won't be rubbished further down the line. Too often I have seen brothers and sisters dig their heels over one purist line or another, while trying to second guess how Malcolm or Martin would have handled a particular situation. As such posturing often unravels antagonistic contradictions where there needn't be any, it is no surprise that there is widespread apathy in place of political consciousness.

To be fair to DuBois; he fought the good fight, while evolving along the way much like Martin and Malcolm - who moved through the ranks of hustler/Black Muslim/Pan Africanist/etc. In my opinion, critiques which only considers his life in discrete stages are generally unhelpful and therefore do little to deepen our understanding of his complex life.

Respect.

eGuerrilla:

Bruv, I sometimes wonder whether Malcolm and Martin could ever have attained the heights they reached if they had adopted a different set of tactics. My reason for canvassing this view is based on two broad assumptions:
(1) that our "struggle", which is essentially a model for engendering social change, is itself laden with contradictions.
(2) that even with the best will in the world, all individuals are subject to certain inherent limitations.

Now while there is much to be gained from reflecting on the valuable lessons drawn from that period, I think it is important that we never lose sight of the bigger picture. After all, because the "struggle" ultimately resides on a continuum, there is nothing to say the critiques we derive today won't be rubbished further down the line. Too often I have seen brothers and sisters dig their heels over one purist line or another, while trying to second guess how Malcolm or Martin would have handled a particular situation. As such posturing often unravels antagonistic contradictions where there needn't be any, it is no surprise that there is widespread apathy in place of political consciousness.

To be fair to DuBois; he fought the good fight, while evolving along the way much like Martin and Malcolm - who moved through the ranks of hustler/Black Muslim/Pan Africanist/etc. In my opinion, critiques which only considers his life in discrete stages are generally unhelpful and therefore do little to deepen our understanding of his complex life.

Respect.

They attained those heights because black people generally excel when fighting against direct adversity. All they need is a voice to wake them up and lead them. And both Malcolm X and MLK were able to provide platforms for that. I believe whatever tactics they might have adopted back then, it wouldn't have affected whatever achievements they made. Huey P. and the Black Panther Party tried something different and he was still able to command a large following among a lot of black folks. Same with Minister Louis Farrakhan and the "Million Man March". However, Farrakhan bolted, when he was expected to exploit the success of that event. I guess that's why all of black folks will never forgive him.

The "contradictions" happen because of the different school of thoughts - and the inability of black folks, to make use of whatever is at their disposal judiciously, without adversity. Hence, why we have limitations. I say this because; I believe most black folks live for "today" and the "status quo." And we inherently dwell on being in our comfort zone(s) before taking an approach. I guess that's why we're docile to things, which emanates from "superior" people, or the establishment, that affect us directly, . However, there's that bottled-up anger against ourselves and we express that freely all the time.

Also, Personally, I think we're indoctrinated/educated from birth to fear the establishment and the "superior" race. I'll post a quote from Dr. John Henrik Clarke to buttress my point: "Powerful people cannot afford to educate the people that they oppress, because once you are truly educated, you will not ask for power. You will take it."

Perhaps, we need new black leaders, who're as passionate as those of times past, to wake us up again - and show us how to fight for our just due. It seems "the establishment" understands us better now and the lure of material things has made us disenfranchised. However, once we can get someone to wake us and re-educate us about the adversity beneath all the supericial materialistic things - then we might be able to get back to the basics and fight the way we ought to.

I have nothing against DuBois except that I don't agree with what NAACP is all about and the involvement of the Jews. However, I believe most black folks who don't like him have reservations about how he antagonised Marcus Garvey during his youthful days. Only to end up embracing everything Garvey represented. And he also died in Ghana. DuBois was definitely an enigma and he carried the torch from where Booker T. Washington.

@Shymexx,

I agree with your very first statement which reconciles the heights they both attained with the wider struggles of that period. But I differ with the view that any tactics they had adopted would have worked regardless. Without the benefit of the structures provided by the NOI/OAAU/SCLC, for instance, it is difficult to see how Malcolm or Martin could have acquired the discipline, organisational skills, or platform - which are all key ingredients - required to build a mass movement. Despite the different routes they both traveled, it goes without saying that the organisations they aligned with, at different junctions in their lives, also had a significant bearing on the tactics employed.

One the things I have learnt in the field is that, when all is said and done, there are really no messianic figures. When certain individuals become more visible than others or get trust into positions of leadership, it is often down to the turn of events as well as certain inherent qualities. And by the same token, tactics are often employed to suit prevailing circumstances even as the overriding strategy stays the same. Mainly because there are no short cuts to building a mass movement or even sustaining one, I am always very reluctant to reduce any period of dwindling fortunes to the failure of one individual.

The problem we have today is that people are no longer prepared to "put in the work". Beyond the allure of materialism which you alluded to, globalization has seen to the mass migration of people across frontiers, with a by-product of this movement being the weakening of existing social fabric within host communities where it previously existed. Faced with this constant influx, even when the basis for change exists, the best we can sometimes hope for is uncontrolled expressions of rage, as we saw with the London riots. As the conditions for change do not exist because there are few - if any - credible organisations, in place of well thought-out campaigns, we get uncontrolled outbursts which results in more of our youth going to prisons.

Moving on, I would be reluctant to suggest Farrakhan abandoned a viable platform after the 'million man march', because there wasn't one built in the first instance. The event served its purpose insofar as it garnered awareness around certain issues, and was never going to usher a new movement by any stretch of the imagination. I actually took part in the 'ten thousand man march' which was the equivalent we had in the UK at the time, more as a gesture of solidarity than anything else. The reason for this was that, while the limited goals of that event were crystal clear, there was really little else that tied folks like me, who were drawn from other organisations, to Leo Chester (Real McCoy) and the rest of the NOI crew. I suppose there was the agreed understanding to come together, to advance a common agenda wherever and whenever there was one, but little else.

The last point I am going to make here is that, diasporan politics is inextricably linked at an elemental level to changes on the African continent as well as elsewhere. Whether it is Frederick Douglas' sojourn in Ireland, Paul Robeson's time in France, Stokley Carmichael's (Kwame Ture) stay in Africa, Malcolm's trips, MLK's travels to places like India, members of the BPP seeking solace in Algeria, Cuba...etc, various practical alliances which exist between organisation, events unfolding elsewhere often inspire the development of home-based movements. The struggles against colonialism impacted the African diaspora just as the civil rights movement did in reverse. Hopefully, few will the dispute the wider import of liberation movements built to shake off settler-colonialism in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia and then South Africa, as a also a source of inspiration which many tapped into. Given the background, there are certain rhetorical questions begging to be addresseda) what issues do we coalesce around today? (b) Where are the front-lines? (c) What are the delimiters?

@eGuerrilla

I agree with your post in its entirety. However, I would say this: the structures provided by NOI/OAAU/SCLC definitely played a role in form of a platform in what those two icons achieved. But I wouldn't take anything away from them because they both outgrew those structures and continued building, as the ministry/struggle grew. NOI under Fard Muhammed (in Detroit), and later Elijah Muhammed (in Chicago), never had more than 20,000 followers. But Malcolm X took it to 500,000 followers within a year. Also OAAU was created by Malcolm when the ideology/struggle had already gained steam. As for SCLC, its circle of influence wasn't bigger than Ebenezer Baptist Church, till MLK started the crusade. Evidently the "structures" grew with them. So I would say it was more about people aligning with them and growing with them, because they could relate to their story and the struggle/fight. However, I believe the discipline and organisational skills NOI/OAAU/SCLC did help in conveying the message in a way a lot of people could relate to.

We can also look back at how the Black Panther Party started in Oakland. And how Huey P. Newton et al started from the playground, without any structure. However, with time, and well-thought out plans. Especially the ability of those young guys to discern the law and interpret it, to their favour, in public view. The people started aligning with their struggle and they began to build the structures - as the movement was growing.

I believe every movement is like a sports team where the coach and the team players share the glory whenever the team wins. However, when the team loses - the blames fall solely on the shoulder of the coach. Or perhaps, I should NFL analogy, where the QB is most times the franchise player and always the first to be considered the MVP, when the team is on a winning streak. But when the team starts losing - the QB takes all the blame. Yes, every struggle/movement is like a team. However, the face of struggle always take the credit for everything. MLK for civil rights movement. Malcolm for OAAU. Huey P. Newton for BPP. Just as Minister Louis Farrakhan takes credit for everything NOI/FOI is doing right now. So when we look back in hindsight, to blame someone for the shortcomings of the movement/struggle - it's only right that we blame the face of the movement/struggle. But that doesn't negate the person's achievement(s).

Evidently, in the case of the civil rights movement - we would always question why MLK never provided a back-up plan, as the fight for integration was gaining steam. The Jews, who're two-faced by the way, saw the loophole in that and exploited it to their advantaged. We can also point at how all the institutions black folks were able build through the ingenuity of Booker T Washington and the Atlanta compromise, were destroyed after integration, due to the lure of money. How about the crack epidemic induced by integration and how it destroyed generations of black folks? They've never recovered from that - and I doubt they ever will.

Honestly, globalisation is a fraud to keep the lesser people down by keeping them as consumers. The earlier black folks see through the smokescreen, the better for the race. As for "putting in work" - I believe there are still thousands of folks out there, who're still down for the cause. However, people are just wiser now and no one wants to die for nothing, since majority of black folks are happy with the status quo. Most folks are docile and they don't believe in "rocking the boat" since it's sustaining them for now, to get by. However, what about the generations coming after us? If we don't fight for them, who would? We just can't continue being at the bottom of all the totem pole used in grading people. I'm part of this generation and I know the pent-up anger in most of these youths. They all want to align with something but there's nothing out there to align with. Hence why Islam is growing among black youths in the UK. We definitely need more structures and not just that, if a leader like any of these two icons could suffice, then a lot of people would be able to relate to them.


Lastly, I completely agree with the last paragraph. Politics on the continent and black diaspora are interlinked. And most times, the awareness/consciousness are also linked/connected. A for the issues - I believe there are still many issues we can rally the people around, to fight to a change. In diaspora, institutionalised racism is a big problem once you get into the corporate world. I'd say there's a "ceiling" for black folks out there and I'm a living witness to that. Also the just-us Justice system that keeps throwing young black males in prison, thus giving them a permanent criminal record which would be detrimental to their career options in future. We can also talk about the lopsided economic policies which are against black folks, who're sadly at the bottom of everything. Housing etc.. There should be a front-line in black diaspora against the establishment and another one in Africa against the kleptocrats (utterly corrupt leaders) who have got the development of the countries on the continent on the choke-hold. In a war of attrition, there are no delimiters - and collateral damage is acceptable.

Anyway, what do you think about what Dr. Molefi Kete Asante is doing?

PS: In subsequent replies, I'll start using "Don"/"Bigman" since it seems you feel uncomfortable with me using "Sir." You're definitely someone I look up to as an "older" and you represent the struggle of the generation before mine, in Great Britain. Being a black man in Great Britain. Your generation paved the way for us and fought for some of the things we enjoy today in the UK. So I'll always show some level of respect when conversing with you. loool

Malcom represented the black race as they felt, and his eloquence was sublime. MLK believed there could be equality between both races, while Malcom wasn't bothered about that - he wanted out! The true difference is that Malcom saw himself as 'black' first, while MLK believed he(MLK) was an 'American black' - note: not 'black American' - hence, his believe that there should've been equal rights.
One thing I believe though is that NOI was Malcom's major problem. The NOI of those days was extremely radical and only after he left there was he truly at his peak.

@shymexx,

I still think you are being a little too hard on MLK, in view of the notable successes recorded by the civil rights movement which has carried through right to this day. To be honest, there was a time when I also held the same hard line while working for organisations that had a more militant profile, much like the BPP.

It is interesting you mention Huey again, because he actually acknowledged the larger import of critical events he considered “colossal moments”, right up to the point of his demise in '89 (I think). For instance, without the events leading up to his conviction for a fatal shooting in '68, the 'Free Huey' movement - which was to prove pivotal in terms of recruitment might have had limited success. The march on the state capitol and the publicly this generated was another such moment, as was the jail break of Jonathan Jackson and others, and the episodic assassination of members like Fred Hampton... and so on. In short, the events of that period had a huge bearing on the tactics employed.

To answer your other question; I first encountered the works of Molefi Asante at a time when I was trying to locate a scholarly basis for Afrocentricity. Although I had been introduced to the works of Maluana Karenga vis-a-vis ‘Kwanzaa’ before that time, because I took a dim view of his role as head of the US organization in the 60s, I was somewhat conflicted. I also needed a more balanced view as opposed to the simplistic one which pitted Kwanzaa against Christmas, and Bother Asante provided this.
Beyond this, his well researched writings took me on a whole new journey concerning what it meant to have an African-centred curriculum and much more.

While I consider myself one of those who helped bridge the gulf which had previously existed with our African-Caribbean kindred in Britain, through demonstrative work, I am not sure I can lay claim to much else. We merely ran with the gauntlet we had been offered (and have been running ever since), nothing more.

malcolm x - h.omosexual man. worked as a gigolo.

martin luther - overhyped over 1 speech.

PAGAN 9JA:
malcolm x - h.omosexual man. worked as a gigolo.

martin luther - overhyped over 1 speech.

Yet both are highly respected by non blacks for what they have done. And if I remember correctly Malcom X had a wife named Betty Shabazz along with kids.


Yeah really homosexual.

Stop trolling... -__-

I think its important to note that MLK's policy was far more productive.
MLK was a visionary, while Malcom X was a dreamer. Yeah, its ironic - I know.

PAGAN 9JA:
malcolm x - h.omosexual man. worked as a gigolo.

martin luther - overhyped over 1 speech.

You've just demonstrated why anyone who takes you seriously on NL does so at his or her own peril.
Let us know when you are fully evolved.

KidStranglehold:

Yet both are highly respected by non blacks for what they have done. And if I remember correctly Malcom X had a wife named Betty Shabazz along with kids.


Yeah really homosexual.

Stop trolling... -__-

doesnt change things.

From age 14 to 21 Little held a variety of jobs while living with his half-sister Ella Little-Collins in Roxbury, a largely African-American neighborhood of Boston. Then after a short time in Flint, Michigan he moved to Harlem, New York in 1943, where he engaged in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and pimping; he also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money.

Malcom X being gay is a rumor started by people who disliked him and gay people who wanted to claim him as their own, because he is not aliove to defend himself.

Anyways his OWN refutes these claims.

Malcolm X's Daughter Disputes Claims in New Bio on Father

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/20/135570322/malcolm-xs-daughter-addresses-controversial-claims-in-new-bio-on-father

Ms. SHABAZZ: Right. I think the things that I take issue with are the fact that he said my father engaged in a bisexual relationship, a homo - you know, he had a gay lover who was an elder white businessman, I think, in his late 50s when my father was in his teens. And, you know, my father was an open book. And we actually have four of the missing chapters from the autobiography. And, you know, he is very clear in his activities, which nothing included being gay.

And certainly he didn't have anything against gay - he was for human rights, human justice, you know. So if he had a gay encounter, he likely would've talked about it. And what he did talk about was someone else's encounter.

Remember Malcom X had a lot of enemies.

KidStranglehold: Malcom X being gay is a rumor started by people who disliked him and gay people who wanted to claim him as their own, because he is not aliove to defend himself.

Anyways his OWN refutes these claims.

Malcolm X's Daughter Disputes Claims in New Bio on Father

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/20/135570322/malcolm-xs-daughter-addresses-controversial-claims-in-new-bio-on-father

Ms. SHABAZZ: Right. I think the things that I take issue with are the fact that he said my father engaged in a bisexual relationship, a homo - you know, he had a gay lover who was an elder white businessman, I think, in his late 50s when my father was in his teens. And, you know, my father was an open book. And we actually have four of the missing chapters from the autobiography. And, you know, he is very clear in his activities, which nothing included being gay.

And certainly he didn't have anything against gay - he was for human rights, human justice, you know. So if he had a gay encounter, he likely would've talked about it. And what he did talk about was someone else's encounter.

Remember Malcom X had a lot of enemies.

anything that doesnt agree with your views, you label it as trash, or some conspiracy or whatever.


was his daughter there with him when he was having s.ex with other men?


Dont talk rubbish.

KidStranglehold: Malcom X being gay is a rumor started by people who disliked him and gay people who wanted to claim him as their own, because he is not aliove to defend himself.

Anyways his OWN refutes these claims.

Malcolm X's Daughter Disputes Claims in New Bio on Father

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/20/135570322/malcolm-xs-daughter-addresses-controversial-claims-in-new-bio-on-father

Ms. SHABAZZ: Right. I think the things that I take issue with are the fact that he said my father engaged in a bisexual relationship, a homo - you know, he had a gay lover who was an elder white businessman, I think, in his late 50s when my father was in his teens. And, you know, my father was an open book. And we actually have four of the missing chapters from the autobiography. And, you know, he is very clear in his activities, which nothing included being gay.

And certainly he didn't have anything against gay - he was for human rights, human justice, you know. So if he had a gay encounter, he likely would've talked about it. And what he did talk about was someone else's encounter.

Remember Malcom X had a lot of enemies.

This claim was first made in Bruce Perry's book and not Marable Mannings, which I believe is only a couple of years old (I need to check again).
Even if this claim is to considered plausible, it in no way detracts from Malcolm's overall contribution to the struggle.

It is those who are poorly tutored, like PAGAN 9JA, who dwell on this earlier aspect of Malcolm's life, as though taking a snapshot of a car in motion gives a complete picture of a road trip.

To be honest, I think Malcolm's daughters' gripes with the latter book has more to do with Betty Shabazz's supposed love affair with a security detail as opposed to the allegations which actually get more coverage in Bruce Perry's account. The 're-invention of Malcolm' is a work of painstaking academic research and one I would recommend to anyone interested in developing a deeper understanding of the man. Few people know that Malcolm made as many as 5 trips to Africa while trying to internationalise the struggle, for instance, as only 1 or 2 was widely reported.

^^^ he even came to Nigeria and was given the name 'Omowale' by some muslim association.

tdade: ^^^ he even came to Nigeria and was given the name 'Omowale' by some muslim association.

You are right, he visited Nigeria twice


malcolm-x-nigeria-1964

PAGAN 9JA:


doesnt change things.

From age 14 to 21 Little held a variety of jobs while living with his half-sister Ella Little-Collins in Roxbury, a largely African-American neighborhood of Boston. Then after a short time in Flint, Michigan he moved to Harlem, New York in 1943, where he engaged in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and pimping; he also occasionally had sex with other men, usually for money.

I dont know whether or not he was a male prostitute but I know that it is indeed true that from his teens to when he moved to Detroit and became Detroit-red, he was emotionally and sexually involved with men and I also read somewhere that he had a lon-term relationship with a transexual.
But after joining the nation of islam all of that stopped.

This historic fact is only unbearable to homophobic people. I am not homophobic so I see nothing with him loving men. He must have been bisexual. Huey Newton even wrote an amazing text about how crucial it was for black freedom fighters to also fight for women and lgbt rights.

eGuerrilla:

This claim was first made in Bruce Perry's book and not Marable Mannings, which I believe is only a couple of years old (I need to check again).
Even if this claim is to considered plausible, it in no way detracts from Malcolm's overall contribution to the struggle.

It is those who are poorly tutored, like PAGAN 9JA, who dwell on this earlier aspect of Malcolm's life, as though taking a snapshot of a car in motion gives a complete picture of a road trip.

To be honest, I think Malcolm's daughters' gripes with the latter book has more to do with Betty Shabazz's supposed love affair with a security detail as opposed to the allegations which actually get more coverage in Bruce Perry's account. The 're-invention of Malcolm' is a work of painstaking academic research and one I would recommend to anyone interested in developing a deeper understanding of the man. Few people know that Malcolm made as many as 5 trips to Africa while trying to internationalise the struggle, for instance, as only 1 or 2 was widely reported.

Good point.

tdade: I think its important to note that MLK's policy was far more productive.
MLK was a visionary, while Malcom X was a dreamer. Yeah, its ironic - I know.

I wouldn't want to "pit" the two icons against each other. However, I would say Malcolm X was more of an "ideology", while MLK and the civil rights movement wanted something in real-time (i.e during the struggle).

So, Malcolm X would be the "visionary" since his ideology is still alive and a lot of folks are aligning with it today. However, MLK would be "dreamer" since almost everything he said in his "I have a dream" speech is yet to come to fruition.

That's all I'm going to say.

@eGuerrilla,

Perhaps, it has to do with being sentimental towards the gospel of Malcolm X. However, the "common ground" between the two icons - should be able to neutralise my "strong views" with time. lool. Opinions change with time, knowledge, exposure and growth. Moreover, I used to be the biggest disciple of MLK, till I encountered the deep translation of what Malcolm X was about - and got into what Booker T. Washington envisioned when he signed the Atlanta Compromise. I honestly believe the Jews came out the biggest winners after the civil rights movement because they kept everything they already built in isolation - while tapping into "wider/bigger pool" of integration. That should have been the master-plan of the black folks who led the struggle as well. I guess naivety got the best of them and they destroyed the title they already built, for "dreams" in la la land. That's a tad bit painful.

I agree with everything you said about Huey. Loads of respect for the man. I believe the march to the state capitol was what put the BPP on the map. I can only imagine what was going through the minds of black folks in America at that point in history, after seeing young outspoken and articulate black militants on TV. That act of bravery obviously took the struggle to the next level and everyone wanted to be part of the movement.

Interesting journey, I must say. I've never looked into the works of Brother Maluana Karenga. However, I would say my journey was somewhat like a chain, with one event leading to another. I first discovered the works of Dr. Ray Hagins and he led me to the amazing works of Dr. John Henrik Clarke. Dr. Clarke took me to "school" and showed me more about Booker T. Washington and Chancellor William's "Destruction of Black Civilisation." Along the way, I discovered Dr. Leonard Jeffries and Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan...and they both showed me the amazing works of both Cheikh Anta Diop and Dr. Ivan Van Sertima.

I'd say I encountered Dr. Molefi Asante later while trying to see if there's anyone trying to build a link/bridge between black diaspora, the new consciousness and Africa. That was when I discovered the role he played with the new AU alongside Muammar Gaddafi, and other black scholars in diaspora. I believe he helped in writing the new AU charter and there were plans to do a lot of things on the continent, before Gaddafi was assasinated. Also, I'd like to say, he isn't just about speaking the language of Afrocentricism - he's a doer. He talks and walks it.

Finally, regardless of how you might want to diminish what you've done. I'll always have a lot of respect for you. You lot paved the way for how the race-relation has improved in this country and for bridging-the-gap, between Africans and Caribbeans. I'd say I've never been part of any struggle and the only thing close to black-solidarity that I've done, is by going to seminars/sessions organised by Ashra Kwesi, while I was in uni. However, that has nothing to do with the struggle - just education about the Nile Valley civilisations. Also, do some volunteering, from time to time, whenever I'm free. Anyway, I'm loving the new consciousness in London especially among the guys in the African community. The girls are into something else. It seems we're beginning feel the energy and most people feel more African/black than ever. it never used to be like this.

shymexx:

I wouldn't want to "pit" the two icons against each other. However, I would say Malcolm X was more of an "ideology", while MLK and the civil rights movement wanted something in real-time (i.e during the struggle).

So, Malcolm X would be the "visionary" since his ideology is still alive and a lot of folks are aligning with it today. However, MLK would be "dreamer" since almost everything he said in his "I have a dream" speech is yet to come to fruition.

That's all I'm going to say.

Malcom X's ideology while in NOI was totally flawed. He wanted total segregation from whites and believed in total black supremacy. Tell me, how is that not a dream?
Like I stated earlier, his post-NOI days showed his true intelligence at its peak because then he embraced the true world and let go of his racial sentiments.

I'm not trying to 'pit' both against each other. It just pains me that Malcom X spent twelve good years in that organization. All for what? Assassination by that same group.

tdade: Malcom X's ideology while in NOI was totally flawed. He wanted total segregation from whites and believed in total black supremacy. Tell me, how is that not a dream?
Like I stated earlier, his post-NOI days showed his true intelligence at its peak because then he embraced the true world and let go of his racial sentiments.

I'm not trying to 'pit' both against each other. It just pains me that Malcom X spent twelve good years in that organization. All for what? Assassination by that same group.

I believe his mindset while he was with NOI was the right one due to race-relation and Jim Crow laws a la segregation back then. He was just playing by the rules and he thought "black supremacy" was the answer to "white supremacy." He was still hyped in the militancy back then. You know that kind of feeling is like buying a someone a new toy or game. You know how over-zealous the person would be, due to the newness and new-factor. However, with time, after getting used to it, it will lose that value. And rational mindset would eventually prevail.

However, I won't critique him for spending 12 years with NOI since NOI gave him an opportunity and transformed him from Malcolm Little - to Malcolm X a la El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. Without NOI, Malcolm X would never have existed. So he owed them that.

Also, was he assassinated by FOI or was it a conspiracy by the CIA/FBI? - the truth about his death lies somewhere in the middle.

depressionkills:

[size=28pt]I dont know whether or not he was a male prostitute but I know that it is indeed true that from his teens to when he moved to Detroit and became Detroit-red, he was emotionally and sexually involved with men and I also read somewhere that he had a lon-term relationship with a transexual.
But after joining the nation of islam all of that stopped.

This historic fact is only unbearable to homophobic people. I am not homophobic so I see nothing with him loving men. He must have been bisexual. Huey Newton even wrote an amazing text about how crucial it was for black freedom fighters to also fight for women and lgbt rights. [/size]

Thank You for stating the truth.


waiting for Kidstranglehold to show some article/DNA proof that proves malcolm x didnt sleep with men. .

PAGAN 9JA:



Thank You for stating the truth.


waiting for Kidstranglehold to show some article/DNA proof that proves malcolm x didnt sleep with men. .

You are welcome
This is a link about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-monroe/malcolm-x-was-gayforpay_b_845979.html
Malcolm X Was "Gay-for-Pay," New Book Says

It is something that is very well documented, his daughter is simply in denial because she was raised as a pious muslim and homosexuality is taboo but I honestly do not see how it makes him less of a hero.
He was a great man

^^^^Why are you guys trying to effeminate a strong black icon? The man was never homo and all those bringing out the accusations are paid agents, trying to destroy his legacy and effeminate him.

The CIA/FBI followed him everywhere while he was alive. And if he were gay, or did engage in homosexuality at any stage in his life. Best believe it would have been in the news while he was alive - just as MLK's infidelity was all over the news.

Stop trying to destroy his legacy - take the homo crap off the thread, plz!