[Rainbow Crow]

RC, I think you misunderstand me. A label like 'social conservative' only makes sense in context. That is, people can only really be categorised relative to their peers at the time. Otherwise, the label becomes meaningless since today's liberals/progressives will automatically be tomorrow's conservatives and therefore everybody would ultimately be conservative in retrospect for all time.

I can't agree with this at all, because...

To be clear, just because I think we shouldn't apply today's standards to MLK doesn't imply that we can assume he would be in favour of progressive policies today. We don't know what he would think had he been born in the 70s. He was a progressive in his day, though, and 'belongs' to the liberals.

As you say, the entire reason we apply the label is for modern politics and politics is often about change. To make someone be a "liberal" forever even when liberals stand for things MLK was not in favor of is wrong and frankly dishonest. What matters is his views and not the label assigned to him. Otherwise you can take him out of context and use his memory to undo the things he wanted to stand for.

I will also point out that you are making an assumption that there is some kind of ongoing and more importantly endless social progress that takes place as an inherent part of the "liberal" agenda that will make everyone look like a conservative as time goes on, but I think that is too large of an assumption to make.

[The Immortal Goon]

You're also assuming MLK exists in some vacuum and takes some ridiculous steps that you want him to take in order to be a Republican.

There may be assumptions in the mix, but if we look at MLK's family and colleagues, they're pretty fucking consistent in not being conservative Republicans. To wave your magic hand and say that, despite this, MLK would be is fucking absurd.

[Rei Murasame]

Rainbow Crow is illustrating what was talked about in the OP, though he doesn't realise it. Also, in doing this, he is showing how flawed MLK's approach was.

Basically, the fact that people like Rainbow Crow are able to try to assimilate MLK, but never attempt to assimilate Malcolm X, shows in the long view that Malcolm's way was correct after all.

[Sithsaber]

Malcolm X needed a MLK, and MLK needed a Malcolm X. Interestingly they were converging towards the end of their lives; MLK was increasingly open about his disdain towards economic inequality and US policy both domestic and abroad and Malcolm X had finally gone to Mecca had ditched the "White devil" heresy and was about to move towards a more inclusive form of revolutionary.

[Rei Murasame]

Malcolm was willing to say and do things that MLK would never do, because MLK was hitched onto the fate of the liberal system, whereas Malcolm X was not.

Guns are just as important as microphones.

The struggle for emancipation must be carried through to its logical conclusion. It is not enough to win political sovereignty under capitalism. National independence can become fictitious and turn into a snare and a delusion if popular power, yellow, black or white, is not buttressed by public ownership over the means of life and labor. So long as foreign or native propertied interests control the major national resources, the demands of the masses will remain unsatisfied and the country can again easily fall into economic subservience to imperialism. The reinstatement of neo-colonialism under formally independent black regimes is being enforced in many newly liberated African nations today.

[...]

There are three diverse components at work in the black freedom movement: its working class social composition, its black nationalism, and its submerged and latent socialism. The interrelation and interaction of these elements are seldom clearly seen, and are often denied and dismissed, because they do not come forward evenly and mature at the same rate.

It is obvious to almost every black American, whether nationalist or not, that he has to work for a living (if he can get a job), and that the whole existence of his people is disfigured by the color bar. These conditions generate fierce and explosive revolt. But the anti-capitalist, and therewith pro-socialist, dynamics and direction of his struggle are not so evident, especially when he is not yet acquainted with authentic socialist thought, when the labor movement is passive and indifferent to his plight, and when the avowed socialist elements are predominantly white and weak.

Under such circumstances there are dangers in an outlook, which is prejudiced in principle against socialism or Marxism, is politically unclear, and disregards the anti-capitalism implicit in the working class character of the black revolt. It runs the risk of lagging behind the needs and checking the forward march of the movement itself. The millions of ghetto dwellers are not only imprisoned by racial segregation; they are daily confronted with social, economic, political and educational problems which cannot be alleviated, let alone solved, within the framework of the existing economic and political system or without the aid of socialist ideas.

The outstanding significance of Malcolm’s evolution from black nationalism toward socialism on a national and international scale was that, from his observations of the colonial world and his analysis of modern history, he had begun to grasp the necessity for the coalescence of these two movements and seek a synthesis of the revolutionary nationalist and socialist aspects of the freedom struggle. This step in his evolution was neither accidental nor strictly individual; it was a logical political conclusion from his entire experience as a revolutionary.

Martin Luther King on the other hand presented himself as a Christian reverend and made lots of whining noises about 'conscience', and was rewarded by being handed the same useless liberal freedoms that white Americans already 'enjoyed'. Everyone then called it a day and went home, and years later liberals and conservatives co-opted the corpse of Martin Luther King as being a part of their grand march of liberal progress.

They couldn't do it to Malcolm X.

[Sithsaber]

X was moving away from black nationalism, especially after going on hajj.

[Rei Murasame]

What year was that? You people who claim this, never actually give any sources to back anything up. It's a little bit frustrating that no one backs anything up. Find me any citation that convincingly shows Malcolm X doing that.

He moved from being a nationalist and Muslim, to being more nationalist and socialist. And then he got shot by the NOI. That's the chronological order.

[Sithsaber]

AFTER i SEND SOME HOMEWORK I WILL LOOK FOR quotes. Meanwhile research the effect of the hajj on X and some of the statements he was making prior to his death.

[Rei Murasame]

No. If you want to argue against the known history, then you are going to have to do the legwork to try to make your argument. I am not doing it. The article I just quoted is based on things he was saying just prior to his death. If think the article I have linked to is wrong, you have to prove that.

[Sithsaber]

Letter from Mecca
Malcolm X

April, 1964

The Ka'ba, in Mecca -- the ancient House of Worship built by Abraham and Ishmael.

Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this Ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors.

I have been blessed to visit the Holy City of Mecca. I have made my seven circuits around the Ka'ba, led by a young Mutawaf named Muhammad. I drank water from the well of the Zam Zam. I ran seven times back and forth between the hills of Mt. Al-Safa and Al-Marwah. I have prayed in the ancient city of Mina, and I have prayed on Mt. Arafat.

There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans. But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.

America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered 'white'--but the 'white' attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.

You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to re-arrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open mind, which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth.

During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept in the same bed (or on the same rug)--while praying to the same God--with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the actions in the deeds of the 'white' Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan, and Ghana.

We were truly all the same (brothers)--because their belief in one God had removed the white from their minds, the white from their behavior, and the white from their attitude.

I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man--and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their 'differences' in color.

With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called 'Christian' white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster--the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves.

Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities--he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth--the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to.

Never have I been so highly honored. Never have I been made to feel more humble and unworthy. Who would believe the blessings that have been heaped upon an American Negro? A few nights ago, a man who would be called in America a 'white' man, a United Nations diplomat, an ambassador, a companion of kings, gave me his hotel suite, his bed. ... Never would I have even thought of dreaming that I would ever be a recipient of such honors--honors that in America would be bestowed upon a King--not a Negro.

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds.

Sincerely,

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
(Malcolm X)

[youtube]HzadDomO5cA[/youtube]

X made a lot of conflicting statements (see 9:35 as he states he is no longer connected to separatism )To be fair he did make statements like true integration being impossible in the present american system in speeches after hajj but by that time he was focusing more on the socioeconomic influences rather than the evils of the honkie. And remember that he never stopped emphasizing Islam, he just shifted to the orthodox views of sunni islam instead of the crazy "white people are an evil experiment" views of the NOI. I should have said that he had shifted his interpretation of black nationalism, from the single mindedness of the NOI to a more complex worldview linked to the national liberation movements in the world, socialism in general and general inability to thrive in an unequal society. Yet this isn't a complete reversal; his continuously evolving connections with white arabs and north africans was moving him more towards the traditional socialist and Muslim view that universal brotherhood would inevitably link to an end of divisions. With increased integration and class conscious in American culture some of his complaints would have dissipated. He doesn't really fit into the socialist phalanx like views of your so called "national socialists".

[Rei Murasame]

Yet this isn't a complete reversal; his continuously evolving connections with white arabs and north africans was moving him more towards the traditional socialist and Muslim view that universal brotherhood would inevitably link to an end of divisions. With increased integration and class conscious in American culture some of his complaints would have dissipated.

Very disappointing. I guess he had no fucking idea what he was doing after all, then.

[Sithsaber]

Nope he had finally begun to clarify himself, which was why he had to die.

[Rei Murasame]

By what you've said, he has only clarified that he had no idea what he was doing by that point, and was ripe for assimilation by liberals. It disproves my earlier claim that he could not be assimilated, which is why I'm very disappointed to learn this.

I can no longer say that I admire Malcolm X, since he was intending to drop the nationalist element of his programme.

[Sithsaber]

I have a 97 minute speech that disproves this but basically socialism isn't liberal and he was still against turning the other cheek and working for the man and against all other form of jive.

[blackjack21]

How did conservatives successfully hijack the legacy of MLK? He was no conservative and was definitely on the left, preaching against the excesses of capitalism and the Vietnam War before his assassination. Where as before, conservatives called him a commie, race-mixing cheater, drunkard etc., now they hail him as true conservative who fought for colourblindness. Was this a desire to neutralise the gains of the Civil Rights Movements and was a desire to distance themselves from the segregationists of yesteryear.

All this blabbering about the Republicans being the party of Lincoln and helping blacks to be free from the "liberal plantation" is pathetic to say the least. It makes you think what they are conserving, if they just adopt today's liberal policies tomorrow.

The assertion that the Republicans are the party of racism just isn't true. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Everett Dirksen's legislation. The Republicans pushed civil rights issues for over 100 years, with the Democrats objecting. Martin Luther King was a registered Republican for a long time, because the Democratic party wouldn't let blacks register so as to prevent them from voting in the primary elections. King hated the Dixiecrats, but he didn't like Northern right wing Republicans either. He voted the Democratic ticket most of the time. Saying King was a conservative just isn't true. A Republican, sure. Remember, it was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas. It drives me nuts when people say it was Kennedy. King's father was a Republican too. He endorsed Kennedy over Nixon.

Anyway, King ended up taking money from the communists in exchange for getting some communists on the SCLC. So at the end of the day, he got what was coming to him. Great on the civil rights struggle, but he was a asshole.

[Sithsaber]

1.Which communists? (labor orientated or directly tied to the USSR or both?)

2. So everyone at least loosely connected to the US should be rounded up and killed in LA and the rest of the world? Poor logic.

[Quantum]

People are to some extent a product of their time, so it's a bit ridiculous to apply today's standard of conservatives to MLK. Even radical suffragettes would probably be social conservatives by today's standards. In fact, almost everybody who has lived in more 'conservative' times would be. Doesn't make any sense and isn't intellectually honest, in my opinion.

Forty-five years ago wasn't along time ago. MLK would be 84 today and there are plenty of people older than him such as WWII veterans. Considering that MLK was a leftist and anti-capitalist, I doubt he would affliate with neoliberal politics of the Democrats and Republicans. The slurs thrown at him by segregationists are funningly enough more accurate than the myth created of him after his death.

[Someone5]

How did conservatives successfully hijack the legacy of MLK?

When did that happen? Seriously, who thinks MLK was a right-winger?

He was no conservative and was definitely on the left, preaching against the excesses of capitalism and the Vietnam War before his assassination. Where as before, conservatives called him a commie, race-mixing cheater, drunkard etc., now they hail him as true conservative who fought for colourblindness.

Oh, well, yeah, but that's just conservative spin. No one actually believes that, do they? MLK wasn't really a leftist either, even if he was sympathetic to certain socialist viewpoints.

Was this a desire to neutralise the gains of the Civil Rights Movements and was a desire to distance themselves from the segregationists of yesteryear.

It's just them trying to make their own shit smell better.

All this blabbering about the Republicans being the party of Lincoln

The only American president who was endorsed by Karl Marx himself--a president far, far to the left of President Obama. Seriously, the Republican party abandoned Lincoln's ideals over a century ago. "Party of Lincoln" my ass. They gave up any right to use that term when they adopted the southern strategy and gave the southern racists a party to call home.

and helping blacks to be free from the "liberal plantation" is pathetic to say the least.

Yeah, it is pretty incredible, isn't it? If you catch a republican in more candid moments, it's not unusual to catch them making veiled reference to how much control African Americans have in the Democratic party--considering that a bad thing, of course. Yet that is somehow a "liberal plantation." Double-think at its finest.

It makes you think what they are conserving, if they just adopt today's liberal policies tomorrow.

The Republican party just adopts whatever the Democratic party isn't, and adopts what left-wing policies the population forces them to adopt--kicking and screaming of course.

OTOH, they're pretty much a spent force politically. They're in pretty bad shape going forward.

[Someone5]

Forty-five years ago wasn't along time ago. MLK would be 84 today and there are plenty of people older than him such as WWII veterans. Considering that MLK was a leftist and anti-capitalist, I doubt he would affliate with neoliberal politics of the Democrats and Republicans. The slurs thrown at him by segregationists are funningly enough more accurate than the myth created of him after his death.

Yeah, he would definitely have been in opposition to the rampant neoliberalism of the modern American political scene. Then again, he was kind of sympathetic to traditional American socialist goals.

[Someone5]

The assertion that the Republicans are the party of racism just isn't true. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Everett Dirksen's legislation.

The Republican party then proceeded to adopt the southern strategy in the latter half of the 1960s and started bringing dixiecrats into the fold. They became a racist party during the 1970s and 1980s, essentially in direct response to the political fallout of the civil rights movement.

Though one shouldn't really give the Republicans too much credit regarding the Civil Rights Acts; they were basically supported across the board by the vast majority of elected officials who weren't in the south by the time the CRA1964 was up for a vote, and opposed fervently by anyone who was in the south. More Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans, for example--by sheer virtue of their overwhelming majority at the time.

Neither should people forget that the Civil Rights Act would have died quietly in committee without immense efforts by high-up Democrats like Mike Mansfield--and LBJ, incidentally.

The Republicans pushed civil rights issues for over 100 years, with the Democrats objecting.

With some Democrats objecting. There was, after all, a rather extreme left-wing of the Democratic party that had been fighting for that for quite a long time as well. By 1964, the Democratic party had become an incredibly large-tent party, and it is rather had to talk about "the" Democratic party during that period. The Republicans were so ineffectually irrelevant at the time that policy was made mainly by factions of the Democratic party winning internal fights with Republicans either cheering or complaining about it depending on whether they agreed.

Martin Luther King was a registered Republican for a long time, because the Democratic party wouldn't let blacks register so as to prevent them from voting in the primary elections.

When Southern states were doing so. Yes, they happened to be Democrats. But by the same token, Democrats from other parts of the country were the folks who eventually made civil rights a reality. And, let me point out, the few Republicans who did hold office in the south were every bit as racist and hateful as the dixiecrats.

King hated the Dixiecrats, but he didn't like Northern right wing Republicans either. He voted the Democratic ticket most of the time. Saying King was a conservative just isn't true. A Republican, sure. Remember, it was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas. It drives me nuts when people say it was Kennedy. King's father was a Republican too. He endorsed Kennedy over Nixon.

Because all of this was right in the middle of a sea change in the Democratic party. By 1968, the Democratic party had essentially split over this issue. It was certainly the most significant political realignment of the 20th century.