Who do you think accomplished more as for towards civil and human rights and who do you think would of accomplished more if they were still alive today?

EXPLAIN AND GIVE REASONS for you answer! Yes they are two different type of leaders, BUT for the current state of minorites in America, who do you think we would've been better off with leading us, and who's way of strategic reasoning did you prefer

Hi,

I have studied the Autobiogarphy of Malcolm X before I became(or reverted) into Islam. The conclusion I got from reading the book about him is that he changed his methodology to non-violence after learning about True Islam! Well, just look at what Malcolm X found out about those who are not real Muslims:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/

Just read the section about the Nation Of Islam which he once belonged to but changed into true Islam.

He totally found out that the violent struggle for human rights was not the course to change the U.S. government. I believe the question should be:

Black Panther Party vs. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X

Black Panther Party had Bobby Seal and other figures. I am not sure if I spelled his name correctly. The Nation Of Islam is also a Nationalistic movement but peaceful one despite that they have the FRUIT OF ISLAM which is a militant arm of the NATION OF ISLAM. Fruit of Islam (FOI) are engaged mostly in Karate classes and self-defence without weapons compared to the BLACK PANTHER PARTY which resort to violence with weapons and all{http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/Panther_rules.html}. I would have added NATION OF ISLAM with BLACK PANTHER PARTY but I believe that the NOI is mostly non-violent(except ofcourse if you dear within their organization challenge their doctrines or threaten it with True Islam) but are racist and nationalistic which goes against the tenents of Islam. Therefore, I believe Maloolm X (Malik Shabbaz) made the right decision to change his views for a better America.

Here is an another account of the BLACK PANTHER PARTY:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/blackp.../history.shtml

The BLACK PANTHER PARTY is not yet understood but they definately believed in self-defence to the fullest. I am not sure if this could be interpreted as a Violent organization. If you look at closely the African-American struggle I would say that none of the movements actually were violent but protested differently.

You wanna know something interesting about the BPP?

In Los Angeles, the Black Panthers had a strong following in the areas around South Central communites such as Watts.

The ruling white elite class in the megalopolis saw the party as a threat so the LAPD sytematically shut them down. Introducing rock cocaine to the hoods. Dealing out arrests. Basically incarcerating, criminalizing the party. Eventually, the LAPD orchestrated hits on key leaders of the LA chapter of the BPP. The LAPD made it seem that it was an East Coast/West Coast feud that led to thier deaths. (Although the Party in Berkeley had little influence on the LA group).

Anyways, the outcome of America's failure to nuture the BPP was a set of gangs known as CRIP. I have read that CRIP stands for "Constant Revolution In Progress." The offspring of the LA Black Panthers was the factional Crip gangs all through LA. Pirus formed in opposition to the Crip, but eventually an alliance was formed. Basically to combat the LAPD. Today's warfare in the streets stems from the politics of the crack trade.

It is thereorized that gangs in LA spawned to protect the black community from the ruthless Anglo oppresion in LA. As it still stands. Except its rich white kids buying most of the crack. Yet, somehow California prisons are over 50% minority...hmmm.

I learned something.

From reading your information it seems that the violent methodology turned on itself and it was eventually used by the (perceived)enemy. This information actually exposed something about the nature BPP and the authorities.

1. Racism is the guiding principle which created suspicion.
2. Years of economic mismanagement and lack of economic vision.
3. Lack of self control which derives from the misunderstanding of religious/moral precepts.

I believe that current Governor California would need to address racism and many moral problems in California. However, I believe that the problem is also national and international unfortunately he is part of a party which champions oppression through their years of existence. This would include the Democratic Party! I fully believe that a new party(hopefully the Green Party) is needed for changes in the U.S. and in the world.

I can believe this happened. The LAPD aren't angels that is for sure.

But here is something I know:

1. Drug suppliers (LAPD) need drug users (BPP.) and,
2. Drug suppliers (CRIPS) need drug users (white rich kids.)

Seems like blacks and whites depend on eachother down there in LA. to keep the evil going.

__________________
lambaste me not

If he hadn't been assassinated, I believe that he could've achieved great things, in America and Africa (where he visited several times).

Unlike MLK (who I respect greatly) Malcolm X realised that non-violence was a tactic, nothing more. He wasn't violent, he was willing to use 'any means necessary' not just non-violence.

Also, Malcolm (unlike MLK) was in touch with the lower class blacks, those in the ghettos of the North and knew what they wanted and how to get it.

And finally, Malcolm was described as 'the only man in America who could start and end a race riot.' He had the up most respect from the black community because he was one of them and because they knew that he would never become corrupt and would always do what was best for the black community.

If he had been able to preach is beliefs as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, then he would have achieved so much.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

I liked Malcolm X a lot more simply because his arguments seemed to be based more on reasoning than emotion. While I think both men were intelligent, I think Malcolm X was far MORE intelligent than MLK.

I hate to say it, but I think MLK would have accomplished more. He would have appealed to religious convictions (emotion) on non-black Americans. Being Christian, he already had one thing in common with the vast majority of white Americans.

Malcolm X would never have allowed himself to be fully co-opted by American ideology in the way that MLK would have. MLK was a lot more willing to compromise and would have worked harder to find a common ground.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

MLK would've co-operated with the government more (which he did). But that doesn't mean that social attitudes would've changed (which they didn't).


I think if Malcolm X had more time, he would've changed social attitudes sooner, as I said, he was more in touch with the people. And he would also have changed things in Africa as well as other countries. He was far more iternational than MLK.


If both MLK and Malcolm X had lived longer, they could've worked together (which they did start to do before Malcolm X was killed) and achieved a massive change and we wouldn't have had to wait so long for equality.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison