What Would of Happened if Malcom X had his Way

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Would black folk be better off today than if MLK was non influential? What about the proclaimed “black wall street?” It was a thriving black community in the 1920’s in )Greenwood) Tulsa, Oklahoma. The black community, fed up with discrimination decided to unite and create their own ‘wall street’.

The community had great schools, businesses, hospitals and the crime rate was almost half the national average. They were the first to have indoor plumbing in the twentieth century. New York didn’t even have indoor plumbing yet. One dollar circulated almost 6x’s before it was spent outside the community.

So the wealth remained in the community so their fellow mates would all be successful and thrive. This is sort of similar to what jewish americans do in present time. They are known to give preference to their fellow jewish mates when making an admissions decision in some of the elite ivy league schools. Jewish American tend to invest their money within their own community. I have yet to see a poor jewish family.

Anyways the town was burned down in one night when envious racist outsiders burned down the city. Over 39 were killed and and many more were injured. The city rebuilt but they were never the same again. Just goes to show that some of these ‘thugs’, ‘ghettos’, etc. wouldn’t exist if we stop all this prejudice and discriminatory practices.

People never ask the question, why did the civil rights act pass? Why did it take so long? What isn’t taught in school is that Malcom X was the primary reason for MLK’s popularity. Malcom X wanted to segregate just as the folks in tulsa did. This caused anxiety in Washington and the media because they felt white supremacy would be compromised in the future. So they quickly passed the Civil Rights act and gave them their so called ‘freedoms’. So where do you think we’d be if Malcom had much more influence than MLK?

2

A better question is what would have happened if Marcus Garvey were more influential.

3

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
This is sort of similar to what jewish americans do in present time. They are known to give preference to their fellow jewish mates when making an admissions decision in some of the elite ivy league schools. Jewish American tend to invest their money within their own community. I have yet to see a poor jewish family. [/quote]

This is fucking retarded, and if you’ve never seen a “poor” jewish family you need to leave your little bubble life and look around.

Holy shit.

So… When I call La Costra Nostra thugs from the ghetto (which they are, typically) does it still get quote marks?

Examples of “we” please?

I’m part of “we”, so I’d like you to show me, with definitive proof where “we” have done what you claim.

Nothing more false has ever been typed on the internet. LBJ’s strong arming of his party to FINALLY side with Republicans whom had been fighting for this act for a god damn century at that point is a very well examined and historically poured over event.

Holy shit, read a god damn book ffs.

Because much like today with the abortion debate, democrats have a real big problem with the notion of “personhood”. They didn’t see blacks as people then, and don’t see babies as people now.

Racism in America against blacks was born out of a need to justify slavery. Everyone knew slavery conflicted with the founding principles of this nation, and the only way to justify its continued existence was by pretending blacks weren’t people. Democrats are really, really good at pretending people aren’t people if they don’t fit their agenda.

This is also fucking retarded.

Good god, worst post of 2015.

4

I love vague generalities, and this post got me thinking.

The Ivy League is stereotypically associated with “WASPs”, right?

Does anyone in the US use the term “mate”? When I see mate, or programme I automatically assume British or Austrailian. Or maybe on some remote oil-rig or something cool like that.

5

-Beans, interesting insight on Democrats and person-hood. I guess I’ve never seen those sentiments wrapped up in a single statement like that.

6

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
-Beans, interesting insight on Democrats and person-hood. I guess I’ve never seen those sentiments wrapped up in a single statement like that. [/quote]

Of course you haven’t. It’s “cool” and “hip” to hate republicans and worship anything a democrat does. Haven’t you heard of that one trick pony Colbert or Jon Oliver?

Unfortunately the Social Contract doesn’t eliminate free thought and you’ll actually be exposed to outside the narrative thinking if you take the time.

7

I usually try not to take a “sides” so I don’t always know the fundamentals. The general rule for conversation around here is no religion, no politics. It’s informative when people put their views out, in such easy to digest, almost thesis statement kind of ways.

As a part of the administration, I kinda take certain things for granted. I never really put too much thought into abortion, aside from it being a medical procedure. I’m usually thinking of how to attract hospitals, and medical care industry jobs/dollars to town.

8

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I never really put too much thought into abortion, aside from it being a medical procedure. [/quote]

That’s were we are as a society. Too many people see it this way for appreciable change to happen.

It is very similar to the founding of the nation. All our founding principles laid out in our documents point to slavery being a no-no. However, even though there were plenty of abolitionists at the convention, they knew that it would be politically impossible to end slavery and have one union.

The perspective of the day was slavery was something people did. Every major civilization up until that point had slaves, throughout human history. The fundamental understanding of our moral compass was completely warped, except for the abolitionists. So they conceded slavery for the union, knowing, that in time when it was politically possible, the documents they wrote would force the end of slavery.

Look at the LBGT acceptance movements of today. A hundred years ago that would be impossible. It would get laughed at. It was socially and “morally” wrong, no one would accept it. But today, our perspective is different. Divorce? Same shit.

People can get pretty arrogant when speaking about their generation, the times they live in, etc. However, we’re still a very young species with a lot of ground left to cover. The hard part, is some of it is rejecting the very instincts that kept our ancestors alive and able to procreate and populate the species. (Like “racism” or otherwise being know as “fearing/hating what is different”.)

9

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
This is sort of similar to what jewish americans do in present time. They are known to give preference to their fellow jewish mates when making an admissions decision in some of the elite ivy league schools. Jewish American tend to invest their money within their own community. I have yet to see a poor jewish family. [/quote]

[quote]This is fucking retarded, and if you’ve never seen a “poor” jewish family you need to leave your little bubble life and look around.

Holy shit.[/quote]

your speaking on technical terms. After the holocaust the jewish american that came to america for salvation unified and took care of each other. That is the premise of my statement, obviously not all benefited and some may have been left behind

Again you’re speaking on technical terms. The word ‘thug’ is now widely considered the covert term for the n word in the African Americans community. You don’t have to educate me on where the term ghetto came from. However if you were to ask most americans to name a ghetto they’d easily name majority black city. (Oakland, BALTIMORE, Englewood, Chicago, South Central LA, etc.

[quote]Examples of “we” please?

I’m part of “we”, so I’d like you to show me, with definitive proof where “we” have done what you claim.[/quote]

Yes I said ‘we’. More specifically ‘we ALL’. I don’t want to give you a grammar lesson, but that means the entire populous must be unified. That doesn’t mean everyone is responsible for the prejudices and discriminatory practices.

[quote]Nothing more false has ever been typed on the internet. LBJ’s strong arming of his party to FINALLY side with Republicans whom had been fighting for this act for a god damn century at that point is a very well examined and historically poured over event.

Holy shit, read a god damn book ffs.[/quote]

Yes it’s true because you read it in a book? Have you read a book from the early 1900’s? Compare it to present day and see how many facts are distorted. Go ask a primary source as I have and then maybe you’ll retract from your original sentiment. When your kids read about the Iraq war in their textbooks i’m sure it’ll say, “The Iraq war occurred because George W. Bush was severely concerned with American Security and possessed enough repeatable intel to Invade Iraq to disarm all their WMD’s” Isn’t that what the media reported? Do you feel that’s true? Of course not! The textbook won’t tell you about Dick Cheney’s Defense Contractor Shares going up by 6 fold. It won’t tell you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It won’t tell you that Saddam himself was appointed a puppet by the United States.

[quote]Because much like today with the abortion debate, democrats have a real big problem with the notion of “personhood”. They didn’t see blacks as people then, and don’t see babies as people now.

Racism in America against blacks was born out of a need to justify slavery. Everyone knew slavery conflicted with the founding principles of this nation, and the only way to justify its continued existence was by pretending blacks weren’t people. Democrats are really, really good at pretending people aren’t people if they don’t fit their agenda.]/quote]

Ok and? Go read the title of my thread.

What isn’t taught in school is that Malcom X was the primary reason for MLK’s popularity. Malcom X wanted to segregate just as the folks in tulsa did. This caused anxiety in Washington and the media because they felt white supremacy would be compromised in the future. So they quickly passed the Civil Rights act and gave them their so called ‘freedoms’. So where do you think we’d be if Malcom had much more influence than MLK?

[quote]This is also fucking retarded.

Good god, worst post of 2015. [/quote]

Yes because integration has worked so well.

10

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
This is sort of similar to what jewish americans do in present time. They are known to give preference to their fellow jewish mates when making an admissions decision in some of the elite ivy league schools. Jewish American tend to invest their money within their own community. I have yet to see a poor jewish family.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is fucking retarded, and if you’ve never seen a “poor” jewish family you need to leave your little bubble life and look around.

Holy shit.[/quote]

your speaking on technical terms.
[/quote]

LOL. What does “your speaking on technical terms” even mean? Is that code for “Gosh, don’t take things so literally?” Because when you make a fucking dumb generalization like that, you don’t get to squirm out of it by saying “oh, I didn’t mean that so technically.”

The fact that the title of your post says “What Would of Happened” instead of “What Would Have Happened” or “What Would’ve Happened” suggests to me that you have a little more learning to do before pontificating about wide-sweeping societal problems. Let’s start with learning how to write. You’ve learned some big words, but apparently not how to use them yet.

11

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
This is sort of similar to what jewish americans do in present time. They are known to give preference to their fellow jewish mates when making an admissions decision in some of the elite ivy league schools. Jewish American tend to invest their money within their own community. I have yet to see a poor jewish family.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is fucking retarded, and if you’ve never seen a “poor” jewish family you need to leave your little bubble life and look around.

Holy shit.[/quote]

your speaking on technical terms.
[/quote]

LOL. What does “your speaking on technical terms” even mean? Is that code for “Gosh, don’t take things so literally?” Because when you make a fucking dumb generalization like that, you don’t get to squirm out of it by saying “oh, I didn’t mean that so technically.”

The fact that the title of your post says “What Would of Happened” instead of “What Would Have Happened” or “What Would’ve Happened” suggests to me that you have a little more learning to do before pontificating about wide-sweeping societal problems. Let’s start with learning how to write. You’ve learned some big words, but apparently not how to use them yet.[/quote]

wow you’re so dumb I can’t even dignify a response for your stupidity. As for the title yes I agree it’s a grammatical error. The moderator that shortened the title made that mistake, not me.

12

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
Again you’re speaking on technical terms. The word ‘thug’ is now widely considered the covert term for the n word in the African Americans community. [/quote]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

13

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
Again you’re speaking on technical terms. The word ‘thug’ is now widely considered the covert term for the n word in the African Americans community. [/quote]

This is absolutely ridiculous. [/quote]

Considering I watched a documentary on the Mafia in the 70’s through Rudy’s utter decimation of them last night while prepping my brass and I heard the term thug used about 287,692 times… I’m going to go out on a limb and say OP isn’t too bright.

14

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
Again you’re speaking on technical terms. The word ‘thug’ is now widely considered the covert term for the n word in the African Americans community. [/quote]

This is absolutely ridiculous. [/quote]

Not only ridiculous, but technically, “thug” is derived from the Indian “Thugee” cult, so using it as a generic term for nerdowells is technically more insulting to Indians than African Americans.

15

The “technical terms” issue having been addressed quite well by AG I will continue from there:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:

Yes I said ‘we’. More specifically ‘we ALL’. I don’t want to give you a grammar lesson, but that means the entire populous must be unified. That doesn’t mean everyone is responsible for the prejudices and discriminatory practices. [/quote]

So again, what am I responsible for and how do I have to change my life?

You tell me. You said we, then said we all. I’m part of we. What am I obligated to change about my life or lifestyle to appease the situation?

And thanks for saving me the grammar lesson. Mine isn’t perfect, but I don’t like taking lessons from the blind.

[quote]
Yes it’s true because you read it in a book? Have you read a book from the early 1900’s? Compare it to present day and see how many facts are distorted. Go ask a primary source as I have and then maybe you’ll retract from your original sentiment. When your kids read about the Iraq war in their textbooks i’m sure it’ll say, “The Iraq war occurred because George W. Bush was severely concerned with American Security and possessed enough repeatable intel to Invade Iraq to disarm all their WMD’s” Isn’t that what the media reported? Do you feel that’s true? Of course not! The textbook won’t tell you about Dick Cheney’s Defense Contractor Shares going up by 6 fold. It won’t tell you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It won’t tell you that Saddam himself was appointed a puppet by the United States. [/quote]

So… Because I point out your entire assertion is a complete and total falsity you change the subject to “but bush” and “but Iraq war”.

Protip: You won’t likely find me defending the Iraq war, nor 43 all that often.

That said, nothing in your cute little rant here even begins to address the fact that LBJ’s push on his party to finally treat black people like people, at least legally, has been addressed, studied, and pontificated about over and over again, and is STILL to this day a topic of regular conversation on any quality political board, including this one. ANd you claimed that wasn’t the case.

[quote]

Ok and? Go read the title of my thread. [/quote]

The title of your thread has nothing to do with the fact I clearly answered your question that you claimed has never been asked or answered. It has, over and over.

16

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That said, nothing in your cute little rant here even begins to address the fact that LBJ’s push on his party to finally treat black people like people, at least legally, has been addressed, studied, and pontificated about over and over again, and is STILL to this day a topic of regular conversation on any quality political board, including this one. ANd you claimed that wasn’t the case.
[/quote]

I’m occasionally guilty myself, but I always think it’s hilarious when someone in their early-20’s posts a statement somewhere on the Interwebz that they really think they’re the first person ever to think of, or posts the generalization “No one ever talks about…”

I am not the most worldly guy out there, but I’m certainly smart enough to know that. I went to a very diverse college and have lived in a diverse urban population center for a decade, and I know that I haven’t met nearly enough people from enough different regions in the world to have any fucking idea about the temperature of the entire U.S. population, or even “most” of it, on any given issue. And that wouldn’t change even if I added another gazillion Facebook friends and spent my whole day reading their NewsFeed instead of doing work.

17

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That said, nothing in your cute little rant here even begins to address the fact that LBJ’s push on his party to finally treat black people like people, at least legally, has been addressed, studied, and pontificated about over and over again, and is STILL to this day a topic of regular conversation on any quality political board, including this one. ANd you claimed that wasn’t the case.
[/quote]

I’m occasionally guilty myself, but I always think it’s hilarious when someone in their early-20’s posts a statement somewhere on the Interwebz that they really think they’re the first person ever to think of, or posts the generalization “No one ever talks about…”

I am not the most worldly guy out there, but I’m certainly smart enough to know that. I went to a very diverse college and have lived in a diverse urban population center for a decade, and I know that I haven’t met nearly enough people from enough different regions in the world to have any fucking idea about the temperature of the entire U.S. population, or even “most” of it, on any given issue. And that wouldn’t change even if I added another gazillion Facebook friends and spent my whole day reading their NewsFeed instead of doing work.[/quote]

Good post. I was just as dumb when I was 20 too though. Only difference now is I know I’m dumb.

18

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Considering I watched a documentary on the Mafia in the 70’s through Rudy’s utter decimation of them last night while prepping my brass and I heard the term thug used about 287,692 times… I’m going to go out on a limb and say OP isn’t too bright. [/quote]

(I have no idea whether thug is used as a racial term or not)

It is possible for words to evolve and take on different connotations over time. Just because you haven’t heard it being used in that fashion commonly doesn’t exactly mean that the word isn’t being used in that fashion.

19

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Considering I watched a documentary on the Mafia in the 70’s through Rudy’s utter decimation of them last night while prepping my brass and I heard the term thug used about 287,692 times… I’m going to go out on a limb and say OP isn’t too bright. [/quote]

(I have no idea whether thug is used as a racial term or not)

It is possible for words to evolve and take on different connotations over time. Just because you haven’t heard it being used in that fashion commonly doesn’t exactly mean that the word isn’t being used in that fashion.[/quote]

Sure. The documentary was made in like 2011 I think, but okay.

Conversely, just because “black people” feel something, doesn’t make it fact.

20

[quote]TheKraken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
Again you’re speaking on technical terms. The word ‘thug’ is now widely considered the covert term for the n word in the African Americans community. [/quote]

This is absolutely ridiculous. [/quote]

Not only ridiculous, but technically, “thug” is derived from the Indian “Thugee” cult, so using it as a generic term for nerdowells is technically more insulting to Indians than African Americans. [/quote]

That’s interesting, I did not know that.