Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Malcolm X
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=368		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Malcolm X
What do you know about Malcolm X and what are your thoughts on him?

This very interesting guy often gets overlooked in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Note: I don't wish to discuss MLK (or other figures) in this thread unless it also pertains to Malcolm. It is entirely almost a different subject to me.) They were entirely different kinds of people, however. I think people prefer MLK because he was simple and clean-cut; the same is exactly why I prefer Malcolm. Malcolm fought "dirty", but only because, at least he felt, he had to.

It's very hard to research Malcolm, not because of lack of material (there's plenty in his autobiography alone), but because of the lack of bias. He was quite likely the most controversial figure of the 1950s through 1960s, at least in the United States, although his presence had been felt at least as far way as Africa and the Middle East. It seems few people had a balanced opinion, although I should probably do more research.

Oh yeah, I'm white, just to be clear. Some people think it's weird for a white guy to like Malcolm X so much...heh...

- Kef
Author:  Ingiald [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, that is weird. Who is Maclom X, anyway? I know he was a black muslim, but why was he so controversial? What did he do?
Author:  Tom [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ingiald wrote:
Yeah, that is weird. Who is Maclom X, anyway? I know he was a black muslim, but why was he so controversial? What did he do?

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Malcolm X.

Read away.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ingiald wrote:
Yeah, that is weird. Who is Maclom X, anyway? I know he was a black muslim, but why was he so controversial? What did he do?


First off, I'd like to point out there's a difference between a Muslim who happens to be black, and a Black Muslim. "Black Muslim" in this context refers to the Nation of Islam, a controversial organization/religion founded by Elijah Muhammad, who was succeeded by his son, W.D. Muhammad, then finally Louis Farrakhan, who to this day runs the organization. (It should be noted that both the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X hated the label "Black Muslims"; this misnomer comes from the title of a book written about them.) This organization literally believed, and continues to believe, "the white man is the devil". That Malcolm X followed this creed should answer why he was controversial. :)

But he did not believe this all his life; by the time he was murdered, he was a more enlightened person (IMHO). He changed considerably after his journey to Mecca, where he saw for himself that people of all races could be quite human and friendly and understanding, and left the Nation of Islam in favor of more orthodox Islam -- not that he had much choice anyway, since the NOI was pushing him out. It was in fact probably the case that members of the NOI were the assassins of Malcolm.

- Kef
Author:  Ingiald [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay, jeez! You don't have to get angry. I didn't know that the phrase "black muslim" couldn't be used litterally. Sorry.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Since when was I angry?
Author:  Ingiald [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
It seemed like it in your last post.
Author:  lumberpeg vegeplank [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like Malcolm X, and I certainly understand his beliefs: The black man needed to take charge of the situation. X was very intelligent and revolutionary; his Autobiography is a terrific, if disturbing, read.

I do think that violence solves nothing, though. You can be angry at a situaion and change it through non-violence.
Author:  AgentSeethroo [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh yeah?? Well, I don't agree! I think violence solves everything, and I'm gonna KICK YOUR BUTT!!!

Ok, not really. Violence never solves anything, it just makes people sore. Or thor (if you have a lithp).
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Violence never solves anything


It's kind of interesting hearing this from our military fellow. (Not a criticism, just an observation.)
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, many people hold that "when it is time to fight, fight".

It should be pointed out that Malcolm X didn't really advocate violence, though; he just didn't condemn it either. He said mean things sometimes, but he had a very fiery personality (much like I do, though you wouldn't guess it from these forums); he was just like that.
Author:  warlordofhomsaria [ Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
in forth grade my brainyac friend did a biography on him.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am ]
Post subject: 
ya know, i know this is old and dead, but i think someone should bring it back up.
wasnt Louis Farrakhan in on the assasination of Malcom X?
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:34 am ]
Post subject: 
I think there's very little telling who was "in" on the assassination of Malcolm X other than the assassins themselves. I'm not sure why Farrakhan in particular would have much to do with it because he didn't rise to prominence in the Nation of Islam as far as I know until after Malcolm's death. Elijah Muhammad may have had something to do with it (Malcolm himself certainly thought so -- of course he didn't know exactly when he'd be assassinated but he knew his days were numbered), but it's hard to tell.

- Kef
Author:  Jerome [ Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I think Malcolm X took the wrong approach, but for the right reasons.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
exactly my point, there were some times in his life that he couldof changed, but eitherway he was a great leader.
Author:  Mikes! [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:16 am ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote:
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Violence never solves anything


It's kind of interesting hearing this from our military fellow. (Not a criticism, just an observation.)
I'm about to read this book about how nonviolence preserves the state. That reminds me, I should start a topic once I finish it.


Anyway, Malcom X is one of the "Che" icons. A lot people seem to wear the icon on their sleeves without knowing who the person really was. And those who did persue research seem to be divided on whether or not he was a "good guy" or "bad guy".

I think that even with his heavy-handed approaches to Black liberation, if it wasn't for X, the civil rights movement wouldn't have accomplished as much as it did.

And on a side note, I met Louis Farrakhan Jr. at my uncle's wedding. He was a charming and charismatic guy.
Author:  Sir Hotbod Handsomeface [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:31 am ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Violence never solves anything


Or, if used in massive enough quantities, can solve EVERYTHING!
Author:  Pop_tire [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Choc-o-lardiac Arrest wrote:
ya know, i know this is old and dead, but i think someone should bring it back up.
wasnt Louis Farrakhan in on the assasination of Malcom X?


Whoa, a year and a half bump! Yeah, Malcom X is cool.
Author:  Einoo T. Spork [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:47 am ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Or thor (if you have a lithp).


Or believe in Norse gods. :p But seriously, although I can understand his position, "two wrongs don't make a right". Hooray for hackneyed clichés! (My theory behind clichés is that the reason they became clichés were because they worked. Toastpaint.)

Jerome wrote:
I think Malcolm X took the wrong approach, but for the right reasons.


There. I think that sums everything up.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Thor is NORSE, not Greek!
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Pop_tire wrote:
Whoa, a year and a half bump!


Wow, I can't believe it was that long ago when I made that post. (Though more like a year and a quarter than a year and a half.)
Author:  khan earl [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
he may have been extream, but come, most of the white population back then was racist, I would have done the same stuff if I was him.

ps: my dad was friends with him.
Author:  Stu [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's a pretty broad generalization.

I think it's similar to saying that all conservatives are right wing wackos. If you watch or listen to some of their media, you might be justified in making that claim. Of course, it's never the moderates that make the evening news.

If the majority of the population was racist, then nothing would have changed. Whites would still hate blacks, and blacks would still hate whites. I think people tend to only remember the extremists. I wasn't around back then, but I imagine that the majority of white American's were not members of the kkk. They probably didn't go around to the homes of civil rights activists, lighting fires and throwing rocks.

Just my thoughts anyway
Author:  khan earl [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
well the I geuss I should have said half then.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/