And thank you, Gannon.... I hear your points....Thanks for that, Foxy.
It seems true catalysts for [[hopefully positive) change always meet the same [[or at least similar) end.
"Often his and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s sociopolitical philosophies were pitted against each other because of their differing approaches."
I would argue that happened because it was instigated BY those who benefited most by having everyone at each other's throats...and distracted away from what they had previously been so charged-up against.
When it was obvious to some that Malcolm X had realized that a more general and humane approach might work better than his previous tack, or some would say ATtack, suddenly he was gone.
When it was obvious to some that Martin Luther King had realized a more stubbornly [[and in some instances aggressively) approach might work better than HIS previous passive tack, suddenly HE was gone.
It should be obvious that both approaches needed to understand that the other wasn't far from complimentary...but as they BEGAN to understand this...some greater negative force, seemingly favoring the status quo, made them go away. By any means necessary. Infiltrating their ranks, inciting one against the other, manipulating what they could directly, threatening along the way, finally...when all else failed...killing them dead.
Does THAT mean taking the same attitude is the right thing to do, get your way by any means necessary? I cannot say I agree that joining them in their negative error is a way of beating them at their own game.
IF any group would state first and foremost that NO negative energy would be 'allowed', that their actions would always follow a positive path...no violence, no aggression, no injury intended nor inadvertently delivered, no destruction [[perhaps EXCEPT against that which seeks to destroy them, I have a tough time toeing this line, consider me an 'early' Derek Jensen-type ethical and moral thinker on the way to choosing what type of 'do-er' I should finally be)...then it may then be deemed worthy of consideration by those of reason, emotion, and conscience.
But one that starts by taking a quote out-of-context...an OPEN-ENDED potential threat...nah, that is too much for me to consider. It is tough to endorse a group that doesn't give themselves limits.
How about By Any Positive Means Necessary? Of course, the acronym doesn't quite roll off the tongue in an offhand physical threat...
Cheers
You should CC this to the Tea Party Movement!
Bookmarks