TransJenner
Banned
What did that march doOne led millions to march......The other led millions to nowhere..........
What did that march doOne led millions to march......The other led millions to nowhere..........
Love the narrative that MLK who we can all agree was a calculated thinker and doer was the pawn and not the King title he rightfully earned
While Malcolm is garnered a King status even though he was always nothing more then a pawn. And this takes NOTHING away from Malcolm..he was prolific speaker and powerful leader...but his message was never his alone...and his speeches were often dictated by Elijah...his words were often edited by the NOI...for most of his time in the spotlight he was but a mere puppet for NOI...these are facts ladies and gentlemen...
To prevent this from occurring, Mr. Stephen Currier promised Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Whitney Young, and the rest of the “Big Six” a million and a half dollars. This money was to be divided among them, if they would adhere to the government’s script on the “March on Washington.” They selected Mr. Whitney Young as Chairman and Mr. Stephen Currier, a White man was his Co-Chairman.
The government (President Kennedy, his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, along with J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI COINTELPRO) told the marchers what time to arrive in D.C., what signs to carry, what songs to sing, what speeches to speak and to all be out of town by sundown. Washington, D.C. on that day was considered a “Sundown Town,” like many other southern towns; meaning all Black African Americans had to be off of the streets by “sundown” or face dire consequences.
These “Civil Rights Leaders” were so totally obedient to the White Man’s script, and mandate, that Congressman John Lewis was ordered by the Whitehouse to rewrite his speech, which he did because it was considered too inflammatory. By the way, how did the White House know the content of the speech(s), unless they were submitted in advance, for prior approval?
The same shyt can be said about MLK
Adopted Gandhian principles, plagiarized speeches etc..
If malcolm was a mere puppet for the noi then mlk was a puppet for Council for United Civil Rights Leadership aka the big six.. A group constructed & funded by cacs
Because people(uneducated) constantly shyt on MLK without ever opening a book.
BLM is controlled opposition.MLK was a pawn who was discarded of once he outlived his usefulfulness and started freelancing.
Cacs also tried to kill Al Sharpton
And Black Lives Matter is damn there ISIS status as far as perception amongst the "make america great again" type cacs (members have been run over with cars and SHOT by cacs)
Based on this line of thinking...Sharpton + the movement these dykes created
As well as this fakkit
Represent a substantial threat in destroying systemic white supremacy...which is why cacs react to Sharpton & BLM with such over the top hyperbole & propaganda as well as occassional violence...right?
neither one of them deserves to be shyt onThis is because MLK deserves to be shyt on more than Malcolm X. White people--and people in general--virtually never give up power, advantage or oppression without force.
And make no mistake: MLK didn't force whites to give blacks *anything* but *basic rights*, which is like throwing black people an apple when blacks are starving before dangling a carrot in front of their faces, while the white man walks around doing his trade, government and economic business.
People view them with a modern day lens where the act of protesting is not difficult because of the changed environment. What MLK was doing then was a subversive act in a country were many people accepted their lot in life. You would be surprised the number of people who just want to keep their head down even when they are oppressed. MLK was disrupting the order and even some black bishops and other community members thought he was "disturbing the peace". The letter from a Birmingham jail and the context in which it was written is evidence enough that many people tend to find a way to adjust to even bad conditions. The problem is that both MLK and Malcom are reduced to binaries, one wants integration the other wants to fight and separate. The analysis pretty much stops there without investigating the underlying reasons why integration was a strategy that MLK saw would work given how laws were structured. White supremacy morphs into many different forms, when outright Klan violence is unacceptable they move on to the next strategy of depriving blacks access to the mainstream economy where they can fund education on a discriminatory basis, or use housing in a manner to divvy up economic opportunities.Both were merked in their 30s and did more for the black race than y'all and your whole family lineage will every do
Keyboard militants who Pawg and would prob cry and cower and be quiet like a mouse in the 60s talking slick about Martin and Malcolm.
@Poitier "Malcolm X couldn't shine Martin Luther King's shoes"neither one of them deserves to be shyt on
People view them with a modern day lens where the act of protesting is not difficult because of the changed environment. What MLK was doing then was a subversive act in a country were many people accepted their lot in life. You would be surprised the number of people who just want to keep their head down even when they are oppressed. MLK was disrupting the order and even some black bishops and other community members thought he was "disturbing the peace". The letter from a Birmingham jail and the context in which it was written is evidence enough that many people tend to find a way to adjust to even bad conditions. The problem is that both MLK and Malcom are reduced to binaries, one wants integration the other wants to fight and separate. The analysis pretty much stops there without investigating the underlying reasons why integration was a strategy that MLK saw would work given how laws were structured. White supremacy morphs into many different forms, when outright Klan violence is unacceptable they move on to the next strategy of depriving blacks access to the mainstream economy where they can fund education on a discriminatory basis, or use housing in a manner to divvy up economic opportunities.