However, I am not a conservative, a republican, or an independent.

I am an American, and as an American I believe in Habeus Corpus, the Bill of Rights, and due process.

I believe in justice.

Our political system has made a mockery of Americans everywhere. They have taken the god-given rights that the Forefathers established almost 250 years ago away. The people who passed the National Defense Authorization Act are NOT Americans and should NOT be treated as such because an AMERICAN respects his fellows. An AMERICAN knows right from wrong. An AMERICAN protects his country, stands up for his brothers and sisters, takes responsibility for his actions, and places himself above nothing and no one. 

I urge everyone, political ideology aside, who values their rights to overthrow the CRIMINALS who are turning this country into a dictatorship. It’s time to make our foreforefathers proud.

We are not women. We are not men. We are not democrats, we are not republicans, we are not black, white, hispanic, latino, asian, short, tall, fat, thin, old, young…

We are Americans. 

If you know what it means to treat others the way you want to be treated, if you believe in fairness, in a democratic society, then stand up for what you believe in. Stand up for what is right.

I am not a child, not an adult either, but I can see what’s happening to this country and it disgusts me. I call you all, not as Kathleen Newman, but as our forefathers called us to action 250 years ago, to stand up for what we know instinctively is RIGHT. 

It’s time to take down our oppressors. Barack Obama. The corrupt senators who made a mockery of their station and voted to take our rights away. The tyrants who are sitting pretty in their million dollar mansions while we suffer in poverty.

WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT.  UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE FALL.

EXPECT US.

Martin Luther King, Malcolm X; Their Advocacy and How Their Religions Shaped These

By Idiyatu Akande

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X remains a force to be reckoned with as leaders in the aspiration towards black freedom and black’s equality with whites. Martin Luther King as the leader of the civil rights movement who participated in non- violence demonstration is known for his advocacy in this light. Malcolm X as the leader of Nation of Islam and his advocacy towards whatever it takes kind of mentality is respected for this by his admirers and followers. As one explain the political advocacy of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X one will notice a strong tie with their various religious beliefs which were Christianity and Islam.

In attempting to answer the thesis stated above one will begin by evaluating the political advocacy of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King’s advocacy derive from a sentiment of political activity without collective cooperation towards violence. He fought against the system defiantly but not in the same way one would suppose. He was a supporter of non- violent sit-ins and other aspect of political movements that purposely was targeted towards a united state (ironically). Malcolm X on the other hand was less idealistic and called for social change by any means possible. He advocated for political change through protests and other socio- political means. Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as we will evaluate intertwine respectably but also differ in their backgrounds, political advocacy and religious believes.

Malcolm X was politically inclined towards resistance even to the extent of violence. Malcolm’s background laid a foundation for his political activities. His role as an aggressive protester towards freedom derived from somewhere as one might guess. A theory one proposes is that his verbal and physical protests comes from his background.

Malcolm X explained, “[My mother] defied them that she was alone with her three small children, and that my father was away, preaching, in Milwaukee. The Klansman shouted threats and warnings at her that we had better get out of Omaha because the good Christian white people were not going to stand for my father’s “spreading trouble” among the local “good” Negroes with the “Back to Africa” teachings.”(Malcolm X) This experience was one of Malcolm X’s main motivations towards his kinds of protests.

Malcolm X must have been shaped politically to advocate so fiercely against whites due to the turmoil he experienced as a boy. White Klansman had threatened his family and this anger theoretically must have furbished Malcolm X mentality of freedom at all cost even to the extent of a civil, social, political war. Malcolm X must have seen the correlation between religion and power as this was part of what later led to his rebellion against the state in leading the nation of Islam and the likes.

” It has always stayed on my mind that I would die by violence; I have done all that I can to be prepared. (Out in the world later on, in Boston and New York, I was for years insane enough to feel that it was some kind of status symbol to be light complexioned. Now, I hate every drop of that white rapist’s blood that is in me.)” (Malcolm X) It is very important to see the way in which Malcolm X thought of himself as a man manifest openly in his political activities. He had been the product of rape as a baby due to the hands of a white man. This is not only mentally decapitating for a man; it could boil anger that could motivate violence or rebellion. His mental state must have been expatiating pressure and anger towards whiteness. This can be assumed because Malcolm X even talked about hating whites so much that he hated his skin.

Malcolm X like any other African American identified more with his African side. This must have perpetuated a love inside of him for the African race; in which he prides himself. This was also a different perspective that Malcolm had in being prideful about his heritage, African pride was not very common during this era. African pride was later to be one of Malcolm X’s main protest and preaching. He believed in respect for his race; in which he demanded that blacks forcefully, if not given to them fairly, take the respect that is due to them.

As described here the death of Malcolm X’s father played an important role in his future political advocacy; as anyone who experienced such a loss would have been shaped by it . He explains…” I remember waking up in 1931, again to the sound of my mother’s screaming. When I scrambled out, I saw the police in the living room. All of us children who were staring knew that something bad had happened to our father.” (Malcolm X) The devastation of the death of Malcolm X’s father and the horror that befell his family is one of those moments that brewed or could have brewed anger in the heart of Malcolm X. Malcolm’s family threatened by white racist, his father died in the hands of violence. This could have been and presumably is a root to why Malcolm X anger towards the white racist; which led to such violent passions as he had participated in.

” A newspaper article wrote that, “Death by violence has brushed

Malcolm X three times-as a child, as a hustler, as a Muslim.”(Malcolm X)This quote summarizes the root of Malcolm X’s passion as one might assume that it so caused him to pursue all rebellion against racism even if it took several violent actions.

At the root of the Muslim belief is after all, “if you kill by the sword, you die by the sword.” This anger, disaster and death, all caused by the whites, was purposely shared to show why Malcolm X would be for black freedom at any cost. Also, it shows why he would choose Islam as his prime religion; especially since Islam is a religious practice of revenge as established from prior knowledge of the Holy Koran.

Malcolm X advocated theories such as these: “these blond, pale-skinned, cold-blue-eyed devils-savages, nude and shameless; hairy, like animals, they walked on all four and they lived in trees.” (Malcolm X) This description Malcolm X gave to whites was obviously not appropriate for the time neither is it now, but it does reflect a tone of hate and anger. It assumes anger, hate and ignorance. Somewhat like reverse racism; but this was Malcolm X’s intent to an extent; and this was what he preached in rallies and protests, sometimes.

He began several policies of reverse racism by calling whites devils. His story of the way whites came to earth propelled a somewhat mental enticement for African Americans who already hated whites. It is vital that one understand this aspect of Malcolm X’s advocacy because it fed resentment and brewed hateful thoughts from the blacks that followed X. This laid a foundation for all blacks that anger was okay and that force and violence might just be the way, presumably.

Another aspect of Malcolm X’s advocacy was manners, poise and physical presentation. “I had never seen many Christian-believing Negroes conduct themselves like the Muslims who came, the individuals and the families alike. The men were quietly, tastefully dressed. The women wore ankle-length gowns, no makeup, and scarves covered their heads. The children were mannered and neat.”‘(Malcolm X) According to this quote, one of Malcolm X’s prime advocacy after becoming Muslim was education and physical appearance. He taught that black men and women should act with manners and control themselves. He had admired, been enticed, by Muslim culture and conduct. He used Muslims as prime examples of good conduct and the likes. One could easily argue that Malcolm X was a conservative at heart but is advocacy were nothing short of liberation and openness.

Malcolm X was defiant and spoke indefinitely with strength and courage; he said…”I feel that if Negroes attack white people, then those white people should defend themselves, with arms, if necessary, if the forces of law are inadequate. And I feel that Negroes, if white people attack them, should do exactly the same thing.” (Malcolm X) Like the Muslim traditions Malcolm believed in the theory of an eye for an eye. He respected that everyone should not be passive but aggressive. His statement was at the root of Malcolm X’s political advocacy towards violence. He verbally and kinetically expressed his ideas as he lead some blacks in an aspiration for freedom from oppression and one of racial equality and opportunity for all even if it took violent outrages.

Malcolm X spoke at a conference in New York City; there he described his message or political liability. He says that they must “recognize that anyone who can assemble so many well-disciplined young Negros together as swiftly as [he did] should never be underestimated as a force to be recognized and reckoned with…” (Lincoln, C. Eric; pg. 83) This quote serves as an acknowledgment of Malcolm X’s aggressiveness. It depicts his control over what he wanted to achieve and he will by no means back down from war till his goals are reached. As one could assume Malcolm X dissented weakness and passivity. When he gained ground politically he began to use himself as a prime example of assertiveness that the black man needed to have or aspire towards.

Malcolm X as stubborn as he had been also called for openness; “Malcolm X [had hosted a meeting in Harlem where he] called upon all black leaders to set aside “petty differences and to “reason together and keep open minds.” (Lincoln, C. Eric; pg. 134) Malcolm X did not only stand by his valor towards forceful equality, but separation, he appeared to be open-minded. Malcolm X advocated for openness within the African American community from all leaders whether Muslim or not. One of those petty differences he mentioned was religion and one could say his targeted leader could have been Martin Luther King.

Martin Luther King had hopes for an equal state. He did not believe in violence as his protests and beliefs suggest, therefore he did not promote it. As one attempts to explain King’s advocacy there might be more differences to Malcolm X than similarities.

Martin Luther King was non-violent but still very resistant towards the status quo. One of Martin Luther King’s supporters once used this quote: “a man’s moral conscience is the curse he had to accept from the gods in order to gain from them the right to dream.”William Faulkner’( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) Martin Luther King as Christian leader political advocacy can be described in two words: idealistic and balanced. With the quote from William Faulkner in mind, one could label Martin Luther King as a liberalism whose advocacy towards democracies was asserted by his assurance of God and his will for all human beings ire. blacks or whites.

” In the second half of the twentieth century, [a] [vision] of radical democracy were birth that confronted modernity’s dream quest. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision of the beloved community [was one.]” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin) The beloved community is a community whereby people from all backgrounds and denomination can come together as one in harmony and peace. The beloved community is at the core of King’s protests. This is the idea he so sacrificially fought to attain. Martin Luther King called for togetherness at all cost, he called for a united nation whereby equality would be the culture and brotherhood its joy. He called for love. Lastly he called for hope.

The main element or ingredient of King’s advocacy was that of the beloved community as explained. “The democratic dreams of King emerge from a “subliminal” place in their psyches and lives.” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin) The African American hope for a better future is a testimony of faith and hope under King, that there was limited space and time to dream but those who followed King experienced limited rights but was strengthened by the hope they had for a better future.

An author, “C. G. Jung writes, “While born in the “nocturnal” sides of [his] consciousness, King [was] able to effectively translate and communicate [his] dreams to the “diurnal” world. [His] democratic dreams struck a chord with people’s movements and connected so deeply with social and political movements in their struggle for true equality and freedom.” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) As established here, Martin Luther King’s political weapon was more psychological that physical. He pursued the heart and conscience of whites; not their world. King’s methods could be explained like this: For example, it is easy for a person who wants to be successful to go to school and be motivated to do well than for someone who has nothing to look forward to be motivated. King presumed that if African American could touch the hearts of whites everywhere then racism would or might decline.

One could say King had a liberal way of thinking about human nature.

Martin Luther King did not just advocate for injustice in America, he fought for equality all over the world. ” King and the black freedom movement not only fought for racial justice in the United States, but also animated global struggles against racial oppression, economic exploitation, militarism, and imperialism.” (Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) King did not only protest against unjust laws; he resisted such aspects of the world system like imperialism, militarism and other forms of exploitations. King’s advocacy went beyond that of defending blacks in America. He had a universal message and was involved politically amongst diverse groups of people all over the world. He visited countries such as India, African nations and other oppressed imperialistic places. He saw the world as unequal and unjust, not just the United States. A difference from Malcolm X’s approach is that King did not point fingers. He just accepted that the world order needed to change and that he was going to help.

” King…advocated a politics of love with a focused critique of imperialism and a rapacious capitalism…” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) King was interested in improving the state of those under the demon of imperialism. He was also for a fair capitalist state. King unlike Malcolm X was balanced in his advocacy; he protested against black struggles but he was also involved in other areas of life. I.e. the economy

King’s idealistic stage is just as important for the evaluation of his politics. The holy bible was a major tool that King used in his political advocacy. “King’s democratic dream was based on his theological imaginary, animated by a radical political interpretation of the meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) He had taken the sentiment from the bible that if someone slaps you on a cheek, give them the other. At the heart of this idea did king’s idealistic protests derive? King’s purpose was to drive the heart of blacks into a protest that will change this generation and the next generation. He was non-violent and submissive to an extent but his fight was beyond diplomacy it attacked the mind and the spirit of racist America.

” King’s vision of beloved community finds its fullest expression in the transcendent and immanent love of God.’”( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) The above quote serves as a foundation of the philosophy to which King’s political activities derive which is the idea of oneness amongst all humans; and the idea that we are all children of the most high and we should treat each other as such.

King’s suffering was a big part of his advocacy; one could say he modeled this from Jesus Christ. “King’s dream was born in suffering: his own suffering and the suffering of all God’s children.”( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) King could easily be disregarded as not a participant in the black struggle because he was educated and somewhat comfortable economically; but he did suffer at the hands of oppression as well. He suffered at the hand of unjust whites; a prison sentence. King not only lived the politics he advocated for, he had empathy for those who were not under him for example, some whites or Latinos He was a protester of the power of s uffering as it is common amongst those who have changed the world.

” It was in these darkest of moments of King’s life that he was at a threshold of a horizon of hope. The night his home in Montgomery was bombed, an angry, frightened, and confused King prayed for God’s help at his kitchen table. In the stillness of that moment King resolved to continue the quest for justice and the instantiation of the beloved community.” (Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) One could only imagine the dreadful feeling that Martin Luther King felt after the bombing of his home. As established by Heltzel, it was not easy for Martin Luther King to advocate for nonviolence. The easiest thing he could have done is retaliate after the bombing of his home, but he continued his foundational protest against nonviolence. One could assume that psychologically King was rather hurt rather than angry at white racist. One can assume this mainly because of his response to such events as the bombing of his home.

” By forging ahead through his dark night of the soul, King became inspired by multicolored dreams of democracy. A dream he was dedicated to making a reality within his prophetic black Christian theological imagination. In so doing, he intimately links it with the life and teachings of Jesus with acute reference to the idea of the Kingdom of God.” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) In this respect King used the idea of the kingdom of God to give the people a backbone and example of the life of sacrifice. This kingdom of God phrase does attest to a hope that was the only source of power for African Americans against oppression. He explains that, “the Kingdom of God has both an “already” and “not yet” character. King uses beloved community to refer to the “already,” earthly manifestation of the Kingdom of God. Beloved community is the “creation of a society where all men can live together as brothers, where every man will respect the dignity and the worth of human personality.” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) Malcolm X supposedly believed this same concept but King lived it and made it the root of his messages and protests. He scarified his emotional and physical health by responding to injustice with love. He refused to disrespect authority as this is not a biblical principle. Martin Luther King’s strength was not his own but from his foundation of the gospel which he had been taught from his youth.

‘” For King the telos of the civil rights movement was not only the political liberation of individual African Americans…’ (Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) King not only desired the freedom of African Americans, he wanted equality between all groups. In his protests ” the most authentic material manifestation of beloved community is radical democracy; it is the space and place where all God’s children, regardless of race, creed, and color, are free to fulfill all of their God-given rights.” ( Heltzel, Peter Goodwin ) Radical democracy to King did not mean force; it meant an ideal democracy that itself was radical in nature. As one can see King prime political beliefs were not far from what the framers had created, but there were still some ways to go in achieving this ideal democracy.

In order to tie Malcolm X’s and Martin Luther King advocacy to their religious background one need to conjure several sources of their bias and preference of certain religions as they used them as a backbone for what they were protesting.

” Whether [Malcolm X] was inside a Nation of Islam mosque or outside, his speeches provide a vivid account of one retort’s perception of the possibilities for protest.” (Robert E. Terrill) Based on this observation of the differences of the way Malcolm X addressed his audiences, it was crafted based on the audience he was addressing. One could assume that he felt more comfortable speaking to a black crowd or inside the mosque of the nation of Islam. But as we know, comfort could always be adjusted in order to attain a certain goal. Malcolm X religious ideology was Muslim and at the heart of Islamic teaching was all that Malcolm X stood for. One could say Malcolm X mirrored Islam and for this reason their belief system became one. The story behind most of Malcolm X’s political and social protests is much interconnected with myths from the holy Koran or Muslim bible. A short description of this myth is as follows: ” In its fully realized form, “Yacub’s History,” as this myth was known, the audience is told that the end of the white race has been pre-ordained and that nothing can be done to hasten or halt its demise. Specifically, the white reign will end when a half-mile-wide “Mother Plane,” currently orbiting the earth, releases 1,500 “Baby Planes” piloted byblack men who have never smiled and who each will drop upon . The white cultures of America and England three bombs.” (Robert E. Terrill)

” Malcolm delivered “Black Man’s History and as C. Eric Lincoln points out, ‘Muslim teaching . . . has a strong attraction for some blacks” because “to be identified with a movement that openly rejects the fundamental values of the powerful majority is to increase vastly one’s self-esteem and one’s stature among one’s peers.’ (Robert E. Terrill) One could assume that imbedded in the doctrine of Islam, were the various elements of life that Malcolm X advocated for like aggression and will power. Naturally it would be easier for Malcolm X to incur his belief system thus protest from his passion, which one could assume could have easily been Islamic traditions and beliefs. Also, Malcolm X tie with Islam must have happened because he felt strengthened by Islamic teaching. I.e. an eye for an eye

Malcolm says, “Just as “the white man has never separated Christianity from white,” so the Nation of Islam does not separate Islam from black. Therefore, it combines history and religion into a seamless ideological whole.”(Robert E. Terrill) According to Malcolm X, Islam and blackness are synonymous. After all, it is the religion of the oppressed according to X. Malcolm X does not advocate for a something that he is not. He is a Muslim and he is a black man and he believes that blackness should acknowledge that Islam is the only spiritual force that cares about blacks. With this said, he protested using the structure of the holy Koran and implemented Islamic traditions to his teachings

Malcolm X did not derive his theories from pure ignorance. He actually experienced Christianity growing up and he sees it as culturally mannered but not aggressive enough or what he chooses to be. Actually, “Malcolm’s father was a Baptist minister whose views were deeply influenced by the “black gospel” of Marcus Garvey. Malcolm’s mother, influenced by Caribbean spirituality, mistrusted denominations and taught her children to follow their inner wisdom. Malcolm’s religiousness, says DeCaro, must be understood in light of his parents’ Garveyite convictions (stressing black religiousness and an openness to Islam), religious eclecticism and standoffish attitude toward organized religion.” (Louis A. DeCaro Jr.)

Malcolm X background did not ground him in any particular religion but the struggles of his life and the mirror he views into, which is Islam, did shape his political and religious views. His parent’s openness and lightness towards religion also could have been what shaped Malcolm X’s individual and personal choice to become a Muslim.

The way in which Malcolm X became a Muslim and the condition he was in when he was done is a notable correspondence to his devices. “Malcolm’s relationship to Elijah Muhammad was both his salvation and his undoing. After his conversion in prison and during his early ministry in the Nation of Islam Malcolm was an exemplary disciple, conflating his dedication to the Nation with his adoration of Elijah Muhammad. “( Louis A. DeCaro )

Malcolm X was Islam and because he was Islam he fought and died as an oppressed black man, just like the brave Muslims in the holy Koran had exemplified. Elijah Mohammed as his mentor in prison, who was Muslim, was a great influence on his conversion to Islam thus helping X to perpetuate Islamic principles.

Since Islam is at the heart and soul of Malcolm X’s political advocacy, one could assume that most of what Malcolm X stood for was Islamic in nature. The various elements and structure in Islam strongly believe in retaliation. Unlike King’s advocacy, violence was a tool in which Malcolm X tried to retaliate.

While transitioning to Martin Luther King’s advocacy and how religion influenced it, one will come to a conclusion that every speech or issue (particularly equality) that Martin Luther King advocated for was taken from the natural spirit of the Holy Bible (the holy book for Christians). In almost every account of Martin Luther King’s political advocacy was the bible.

Martin Luther King’s background spiritually inclined towards Christianity. The process of understanding scripture is never complete.” (Keith D. Miller) Since his youth, Martin Luther King had been grounded in Christianity. His parents were not as loose religiously as Malcolm X’s parents had been; therefore King naturally was inclined to remain Christian.

King had derived ideas of most of his speeches from the teaching of the Bible. He had respectfully expressed the same idealistic approach of Jesus Christ. His background as a minister not only mirrors his passion, they are his passion and this leads him to protest sayings of love and acceptance just as Jesus Christ had preached.

One could argue “that King defines and enacts [his] “I Have a Dream” [speech] as biblical narrative and biblical hermeneutic-a definition and an enactment that are basic to the meaning of the oration and that therefore demand our attention.” (Keith D. Miller) As one can observe Martin Luther King’s most notable and famous speech, “I Have a Dream” main components were derived from Christian principles. His longing for love over economic or social liberation can only be felt by King because of his schooling in the bible. His I Have a Dream speech, which is at the pinpoint of King’s advocacy, main theme is the message of love and togetherness. The message of love and togetherness is the soul of the message of the life of Jesus, including the cross according to the Holy Bible.

‘ ” As James Cone explains, “A separate faith emerged among black Christians in the United States because they believed that the God of the Exodus, the prophets, and Jesus did not condone the mistreatment they received from whites” (Martin 122)” (Keith D. Miller) In simpler terms based on this depiction of the black movement, Martin Luther King and his Christianity encourage blacks to see their plight as that of the slaves in the bible, in whom God is their God and salvation and a promise in the after life is their hope. He used the story of the Israelite as a great account for his protests. His protests could easily be described as freedom is possible because those before us had overcome oppression. He also offered hope to the oppressed that, like the Israelite, God would redeem them. King also established a forum amongst blacks that justice was not the responsibility of blacks to forcefully take but that of God. Martin Luther King must have seen the God of the Christian faith as a principal of love, justice and hope and that was why he had worshiped him and actively used God as a forum for strength. King not only shared theories from the bible, he also shared stories. These stories helped King with his teaching of the power of God as outlined in the happenings of the olden days written about in the Holy Bible.

King took several stories from the bib”After being convicted of violating an unjust law during the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956, King reflected on his setback: “You don’t get to the Promised Land without going through the wilderness” (”Address” 200). He based his entire 1957 homily “The Birth of a New Nation” on Exodus , interpreting Egyptian slavery as a common, albeit temporary condition and observing that oppressed people will eventually revolt because they”cannotbe satisfied with Egypt” (20).” (Keith D. Miller) King referenced stories in the bible and compared them to the black struggles. For example, he took the story of the Israelite le of proper governing to depict to the public, both black and whites, the way in which leaders of old governed and how they tackled several issues which concerned America at the time especially blacks. As one is familiar with, King advocated for government in general, not just blacks. He was a social reformist transformed and inspired by the bible and biblical principles. ” Later in [his] speech, instead of selecting original phrases for the climax of the “I have a dream” litany-the King’s and other protestors’ constant and ubiquitous use of the word freedom in practically every anthem, chant, sermon, and oration of their movement

[ This] can be seen as a reference to a goal shared by the Hebrews in Egypt, Hebrews in Babylon, and African Americans under segregation, a goal whose realization was guaranteed by God.” (Keith D. Miller) Martin Luther King did not choose his own words in his protests, he would use quotes from the bible. This technique was used in the hopes that the conscience of the white man would be pricked. King had a liberal way of thinking of human nature, he believed that whites and blacks were all children of God and that they were capable of unity.

As described in the excerpt above and the other statements made by some sources, one could arguably say that at the heart of Martin Luther King’s advocacy was Christianity. It served as a backbone for his various protests and messages of love, hope and equality. Not only did King advocate preachings from the Bible, his teachings were the Biblical and as one will notice King’s idealistic dream as celebrated today is a dream come true.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King political advocacy did not resonate from thin air. They mostly came from their background as a child , young adult and adult. The principal elements of their backgrounds was religion. This religion served as expression of the heart and passion of both men.

Martin Luther King’s background derived from that of Christianity, while Malcolm X passion was expressed through Islam. One could say the passions of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X differs because of the way he which they expressed themselves. Martin Luther King’s protests could be seen as coming from a goal towards love and togetherness while Malcolm X’s could be described as respect and equality. In either scenario, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King’s passions were co-established by their religion; Christianity and Islam.

As one hopes and aspires through the teaching of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, a conclusion one cannot ignore is this: that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were world-shapers and odd- deifiers. They, through courageous efforts have criticized, died and lived through impossibilities. At the heart of their protests and advocacy is a backbone that at most cannot be ignored; this bone is their religion.

As the minister of the Nation of Islam and as a Christian Minister, both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X created an indivisible and divisible medium in which they advocated for social and economic freedom of their people. This is their stories and these stories are integrated and shaped by facts taken from the holy books of Moslems and Christians, the Koran and Bible. There is no need to deny that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X will remain a spiritual, physical, social, political, religious and economical force to be reckoned with; and all respect is due to their beliefs or religion.

Bibliography
Heltzel, Peter Goodwin . “RADICAL (EVANGELICAL) DEMOCRACY: THE DREAMS AND NIGHTMARES OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AND ANTONIO NEGRI .” Political Theology 10.2 (2009): 287-303. Academic Search Premier . EBSCO. Web. 28 Mar. 2010.

Image via Wikipedia

We all know of the President’s father’s Kenyan Muslim roots. Some know that the American taxpayers money is supposedly going to be used to roll out sharia law in Kenya.  Some say he is a “closet Muslim,” but is he?  One point made in the first video is that Hammas is a terrorist organisation.  America is supposed to be fighting a war against terrorism.  Israel is a democracy yet there is a boycott on Israeli products.  Why?  Israel is defending itself against daily bombings.  If the terrorist attacks by Hammas stopped there would be peace.  If Israel stopped defending itself the Palestinians would take over the country, which is what they want.  Think about it.  Another point:  Remember 9/11.  Pause and reflect on that and ask yourself:  Why would or should the President support Hammas? 

Are all this person’s videos just anti-Obama propaganda?  I have to stress at this point that I am married to an African Muslim and know through that, that not all Muslims are radical.  My husband was as horrified as me when he heard and saw the events of 9/11 and the deaths and destruction caused at the twin towers.  His reaction was the same as mine.  We both couldn’t believe it.  Awful!  A big shock.  I remember watching the news footage and thinking “Is this for real?” 

I truly wish I knew more about American politics.  I do agree that antisemitism is at the root of pro-Palestinian thinking, since I can never get my head around why anyone would be anti-Israel when it is a democracy protecting itself against attack.  The Fox News clips on the third video are interesting and thought provoking though, but are they one sided?  Does Fox News also send out messages which tell another side of the story, or is it biased reporting?  Let me know. 

Who is the world’s number one terrorist?  The guy on this clip names President Obama.  Get real!  What part of “he’s not a member of a terrorist organisation” doesn’t he get?  He names the nation of Israel “not black Israel, white Israel” as second.  A few words on that one:  black Jews from Ethiopia, said to be the descendants of Noah through Cush, and once called Cushites, are making aliyah, that is – emigrating to Israel to the roots of their faith and where they think of as their true home land.  They are at as big a risk of being killed by terrorist attacks on Israel as any other Israeli.  The nation of Israel are not terrorists.  They’re people defending their country.

What is really going on between Odinga and Obama?  Is Obama a nominal Christian or a believing Muslim?  How could we tell?

Radical Muslims do hate the “infidel” America, but not all Muslims are radical. 

Yes, Obama does write about and praise Malcolm X in his book Dreams from my Father.  I’ve read it for myself.  Malcolm X was imprisoned for 10 years for criminal activities and it was when he was in jail that he became a member of The Nation of Islam.  In 1952 he was back in the community and became its leader and spokesman.   He taught black supremacy and advocated the separation on black and white Americans.  On the topic of the assassination of President Kennedy he said it was a case of “chickens coming home to roost.”  He resigned from the movement a year later, in 1964. He was assassinated in 1956 when speaking at a meeting of the Organization of Afro-American Unity.  Ironically, the three arrested in connection with this were Nation of Islam members.  Although a Sunni Muslim, Malcolm X was buried from the Church of God in Christ which is in Harlem.

The maker of these videos says that his church is “more like a cauldron of hate” than a Christian church.  Rev Wright of Trinity Church sounds like he’s preaching politics in the clips on here.  What do we know about the man and his church? 

Listen to this one and find out more about Rev Wright.  Hate speech from his pulpit.  He even says Jesus was a black man.  What the heck is this man teaching his people?  Jewish Israelis are not black and Jesus was born of a Jewish mother, not a black lady. 

If this guy “loves his enemies” where is all that hate speech coming from?  He has retired now and I read that the President has left that church, and no wonder.  It would not be good for his profile and popularity, but what does he believe?  When Rev Wright made a few media appearances, speaking at NAACP and at the National Press Club, this resulted in President Obama resigning as a member of Trinity Church, speaking publicly about it, saying that he was “saddened” by the preacher’s behaviour.  How he sat and listened to a man like this is beyond me.  I have watched videos of what he preached and his interviews on television and he attacked the American government and members of it so often that it’s bordering on sedition.  For instance, in a sermon called “Confusing God and Government” he stated that the “government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth is they believed that all white men were created equal.”  Really racist, isn’t it?  This man who claimed to love his enemies and to be a man of God preached so much hate which is ungodly.  He continued: “The truth is they did not even believe that white women were created equal, in creation nor civilization. The government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get white women the vote. Then the government had to pass an equal rights amendment to get equal protection under the law for women.”  What do you think of that?  He then says: “The government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence who sexually harassed Anita Hill, and a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to undo Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action. The government lied in its founding documents and the government is still lying today. Governments lie.”   He claimed that the government lied about Pearl Harbour  and the Gulf of Tonkin incident and said that the government wanted them to get into the Vietnam war. He said that the government infected African American men with syphilis in the Tuskegee experiment and that HIV was a means of genocide of people of colour.  Of the native American people he said that they put the “Indians on reservations” also claimed that “the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘ God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America.”  He wanted his God to damn America?  How Christian is that?  He even claimed that America was to blame for 9/11 and this was written about in ABC News in 2008.  The President was married in this church and he and his wife had their children christened there.  This man was it’s preacher for some 20 years, churning out such hatred and racism from his pulpit.  Aaron Klein, of World Net Daily wrote on 6th June 2011 that “President Obama’s faith adviser, Eboo Patel, declared that what Obama learned from his days at Chicago’s controversial Trinity United Church will help America.”  How?  What do you make of that? 

If I had went to his church once, it would have only been once as I’d have never gone back there to listen to his warped political beliefs, his racism and ungodly behaviour.  How did the President stay there for so long, I wonder? 

Oprah Winfrey also used to attend that church and left it in 1982, though she has no Christian beliefs now, if she ever did have.  According to two sources, “Oprah Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright’s more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America’s favorite daytime talk-show host.”  I would guess that the President resigned for the same reasons.

What do you think of this, the last of the six part series?

What on earth is a “civilian national security force” anyway?  The sinister sounding music running through these clips is suggestive.  The one who made them is beyond a doubt anti-Obama and didn’t want him elected.  That’s pretty clear.  These clearly propaganda clips do have some good points though this last one makes some pretty ridiculous ones.

      I agree that leaders are an important part of trying to make a movement. They need to lead a crowd and pump them up so that they fulfill what they are trying to achieve. Some leaders made a huge difference in the Civil Rights Era that probably wouldn’t have been accomplished without them. A leader needs to have bold characteristics that make them stand out and make them able to lead a crowd.

     Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the most know leaders of the Civil Rights Era. He is known for giving his “I Have a Dream” speech in front of a crowd in Washington. This speech caused other people to realize what he was saying and join in on protests to fight what they were fighting for. Another leader was Malcolm X who was in an Islamic group that used violence if needed unlike MLK who didn’t use violence under any circumstances. Malcolm X was very fond of using lynching as a way of getting what he wanted from people. If they messed with him, he would mess with them back. One flaw in his method of leading was that when his group didn’t agree with him at one point, they shot him down. Those two groups of people had a leader to rely on and give them orders in order to achieve their goals

     The things that make up a leader are very important. A leader must be able to speak out in a crowd without hesitation and be able to argue an opinion. Another thing that a leader must have is organization skills because an unorganized group usually doesn’t end up well in most cases. One of the last things a leader must have is sportsmanship for his or her people because the people need a good pat on the back once in awhile. Leaders should always try getting the crowd on their good side in order for those people to believe in what they are saying.

     Leaders are an important part of the Civil Rights Era. They must have the confidence and courage to lead a crowd to victory. They also must not be afraid to speak up for themselves and try making a difference. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are two key Civil Rights leaders that lead their groups of people into fighting for their freedom or rights.

Intellectual conformity in the United States distorted the identity of some of my heroes while elevating the wealthy and powerful to heights undeserving. Our contemporary value system has been used as a tool in deconstructing historic reality. It blankets bandwagon ideologies and corrupt prerogatives under a veil of intellectual accuracy. Traditional Heroification in America has been used to undermine the best of the human spirit in some cases while exalting the worst of the human spirit through mass appeal in others.  When textbooks are used as means to misuse historical facts, we as a people, become oppressed in a sense that we are robbed of knowledge which can be used to further enlighten our minds.

First, let me say I am a minority…and yes I can be considered as lower socio economic status. However, it is not the categorical significance of those terms which overwhelms me to voice my opinions of what I consider to be unjust.  It is the ardent illumination of my blood shot glare, from which I view reality that I am motivated. You see, I willingly ate the regurgitated education fed to me during elementary school with genuine acceptance of something nurturing. Not knowing that in reality these were seeds of conformity planted in my subconscious to accept a system of intellectual enslavement. And again, just to make clear…I am not saying that all of our American educational system promotes intellectual immaturity just the parts that are designed to stunt our understanding of historical reality. I take this opportunity to point out some examples through the lives of political activist Malcolm X, and Cesar Chavez in attempt to show how they are displaced or distorted by American history.

 Nobel Prize economist (1978) Herbert Simon argued that sometimes individuals  find that it isn’t actually rational to go great lengths to maximize utility since, searching for the perfect answer is itself a costly activity. Instead, they engage in bounded rationality “Individuals save time and effort by making decisions that are “good enough,” rather than perfect.” (Krugman)  It is no secret that we are trained to view history in a pre designed manner throughout the years of elementary school, junior high and even high school. We are taught to accept certain individuals as relevant heroes through a process of idealized and even misleading glorification of character types. It seems that what helps promote certain values is good enough to teach on a national level—because it simply works.

In his book Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Lowes explains the process of hero making: “two twentieth century Americans provide case studies of heorification; Woodrow Wilson and Helen Keller. Wilson was unarguable an important president, and he receives extensive textbook coverage. Teachers have held up Helen Keller, the blind and deaf girl who overcame her physical handicaps, as an inspiration to generations of school children. Heroification so distorts the lives of Keller and Wilson (and many others) that we cannot think straight about them. Historians and filmmakers have disregarded her actual biography and left out the lessons she specifically asked us to learn from. All know that she was a blind and deaf girl but, about the whole of her adult life, they are ignorant. Helen Keller was a radical socialist, a member of the industrial workers of the world (IWW), the syndicalism union persecuted by Woodrow Wilson.” “They associate Wilson with progressive causes like women’s suffrage; some recall the administrations Palmer raids against left wing unions. But my students seldom know or speak about two antidemocratic policies that Wilson carried out; racial segregation of the federal government and his military interventions in foreign countries. His interventions in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua set the stage for the dictators Batista, Trujillo, the Duvalier’s, and the Somoza, whose legacies still reverberate. He was an outspoken white supremacist—his wife was even worse—and told “darky” stories in cabinet meetings. His administration submitted an extensive legislative program intended to curtail the civil rights of African Americans, but congress would not pass it. He used his power as chief executive to segregate the federal government. He segregated the navy, which had not previously been segregated, relegating African Americans to kitchen and boiler work. Most of the text books that do treat Wilson’s racism give it only a sentence or two. Some take pains to separate Wilson form the practice: “Wilson allowed his cabinet officer to extend the Jim Crow practice of separating the races in federal offices” is the entire treatment in Pathways to the Present. Denying students the humanness of Keller, Wilson, and other keeps students in intellectual immaturity. It perpetuates what might be called a Disney version of history; students also develop no understanding of causality in history.” (Loewen)

When most people hear the name Malcolm X, they associate it with rebellion and violence and they are correct, however, I do not believe that he was a man with a nature of violence and harm. After decade upon decade of human suffering it would be ignorant to think oppressed people are not fed up. And it might very well be easier for people to say “Malcolm X was a bad man for telling others to defend themselves with physical force when they are being beaten”…when it is not them who witness their mothers being raped, fathers mauled by dogs, or grandmothers being beaten right in front of them—just for the sake of having certain biologic or genetic differences. Individuals also (perhaps by comparison) recall the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his different approach to ongoing human suffering. If some say he was a greater because he took the pain and encouraged others to let themselves be harmed or tortured for the cause then I would not argue in contrast. But, believing that Mr. Malcolm is a lesser man for standing up for human rights is unimaginable.  They both had a message; Dr. King’s message was not revolutionary it was common sense and was a right long ago acknowledged by the highest of our court system. Legally cornered in to a section of forced reconciliation, the enemies of freedom were chastised for their sadistic work on a national platform and from the very same ground their standard form of operation bred from.

Malcolm X was of a different sort, he met oppressing forces head on and with the same intensity, even though it outraged contemporary society. He called for those tired of being tired to stand up and defend their God given right to be free of pain and suffering. He understood that no one should kneel before any but God. Conformists branded him negative, they undermined his message, and distorted it as being detriment to the security of this nation, when in fact; the civil war showed us that it was often necessary to use violence to better human conditions in America. No one in their right mind can deny the fact that Dr. King had a lot to do with human progress however; it takes insight to see that Malcolm X also made contributions, and to see their deaths as part of conspiracy. It is ignorance in basic form to believe that their murders resulted from unfortunate circumstance alone. 

Like Dr. King, Cesar Chavez had a voice and his methods were of similar subtle nature, retreating to the grounds of self-affliction in order to manifest the rightful request of dignity a people deserve. But did he ever get it? Even though he showed the better aspects of our human qualities and ultimate self-control his life was also taken. Most see that he died from starvation but, maybe what really killed him was the struggle; he died hungry and deprived of mass acknowledgment for his work. The oppressors dismissed his purpose as meager while recruiting more field workers and seeking the jargon to justify their exploitation.

Those who don’t credit Malcolm X’s message for self-defense or Cesar Chavez’s boycotts as advancement of human progress in our nation are wrong. Might as well say that blaming the victim for wanting to rise up against the maltreatment of inhumane conditions, qualifies as being malignant. Even though physical slavery ended long ago, intellectual, mental, and spiritual enslavement still continue. You cannot tell the oppressed that it is not proper to demand equality in a nation that is supposed to stand for freedom and justice for all.

Works Cited

Krugman, Wells, Robin. Micro Economics Second Edition. Worth Publishers, 2009.

Loewen, James W. Lies My Teacher Told Me. Touchstone, 1995-2007.

Bibliography
U.S.A.
Sixties. Vol. 4. Danbury, Conn.: Grolier Educational, 2001. Print.
Straub,
Deborah Gillan. Voices of Multicultural America: Notable Speeches
Delivered
by African, Asian, Hispanic, and Native Americans, 1790-1995. New York:
Gale Research, 1996. Print. Singleton, Carl, and Rowena Wildin. The
Sixties
in America. Vol. 2. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem, 1999. Print. X, Malcolm,
and
Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
Eng.:
Penguin, 1968. Print.

Now the very man who carries this name that has struck fear in our hearts is reported dead, does this give reason to celebrate?  There are more thoughts to consider; have we martyred him to the jihadists, does this mean we have obliterated Al Qaeda, should we now feel safe? How sad is it that we still need to kill a single man just to keep thousands safe? I understand that most are of the free world persuasion and another Hitler has been ended. But we also have to stop and think; that these great monsters might be created by their circumstance. What does this say about the conflicting cultures to have to bring about such hostile leaders during globalization? We still have a very long way to go in development, there are still those that feel the need for a violent means to get attention for their purpose or cause is the only recourse left to them. Is it because of this that we have violent abilities for defense also still in need? For those that had sheltered him were the pressures finally too great, or did a sense of guilt (which is what most Americans feel) finally weaken their resolve to house the leader of Al Qaeda?

Fear and the need for support usually bring us together in groups; that is what social animals do. I do not feel that our guard needs letting down, rather that we need to accept the sad reality that there is no safe haven against true monstrosities. Whether they are cast upon us from national or religious leaders, or merely from the kid on the poor block who doesn’t know any better way to get something than to steal or bully, we have never been truly safe just delusional in our own concept of sanctuary. This I hope does not make us feel secure, just aware that there are no places to hide from hatred, mistrust and violent outbursts. We still need to show a peaceful example of living for diversity acceptance to take root and help our interactions; awareness and deliberate actions must be not only learned but practiced as well. If there was ever a need to connect one name with another it would be now. Maybe to learn by example we should look to Malcolm X’s example of peaceful demonstration and living changed from hostility. Instead of feeling jubilant, we could feel a quiet resolve to find a way to keep this from happening again. 

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Malcolm X probably, at one time the most feared black man in America simply for the fact that he belonged to Nation Of Islam known, by some as the Black Muslims during the sixties. We don’t hear too much about the Chicago Police blocking them or harassing them like the southern boys , of law enforcements was during Martin Luther King Jr,  down South.

The man, who was the face, of Elijah Muhammad’s NOI spoke directly to the cameras his opinions and you can’t locate on film any law authority bucking up to him, as a member, of the group. The near presence, of the security arm, of the Fruits of Islam sent fear through many whites when their sole purpose was making sure harm wasn’t directly toward their leaders.

And, of course that many black dressed men rather they was in the Nation, of not to this very day intimidate many whites that they can’t deal with the image, of what might or might not occur. Between a black male or female te back man send many whites to questioning their action.

In Malcolm X, you saw an educated man with a past criminal history that still to this day can prove people can change and make a different if they make the correct choices. We very aware that you can’t say the Nation of Islam without someone thinking about the slain leaders. And, he has been gone for many decades since he led the group and broke a way, from the organization.

This is the legend, of the man. Who made whites fearful simply for standing firm against injustice? Many groups  that came, from different division, of the Nation owe their honor to the late leader. Even, if they can’t admit it.

The old saying there none so blind that they can’t see could be compared to Malcolm X, who awoke to the truth concerning his mentor. Plus, the visit he saw when he journey to Mecca and saw a new awakening.

Malcolm X’s life seemed to be destined to be not so great when members of the Ku Klux Klan shattered windows in his family’s house in Omaha while his mom was pregnant with him. When he and his family moved to Lansing, Michigan another group burned down his house. Malcolm said that it seemed the white policemen just watched it burn. At the age of six, Malcolm’s dad was killed and the insurance agency wouldn’t pay what it owed to the family, claiming the death a suicide. After that his mother was sent to a mental hospital and he moved in with a foster home family in 1937. When he went to school, he felt out of place. He told his teacher he was going to become a lawyer and his teacher told him to become a carpenter. In 1940 he moves in with his half sister Ella in Boston. In Boston, Malcolm gets a job as a shoe shiner. He soon starts to sell marijuana and alcohol because that’s the “real” way to earn cash. He then starts to drink, smoke, and gamble. After being blacklisted for pulling a gun on a gambler, Malcolm starts stealing. Malcolm starts using more drugs like cocaine and ends up etting caught in a pawn shop and sent to jail. In prison, Malcolm starts to read books and learns better English. He soon gets transferred to Norfolk Prison Colony in 1948. There is less violence there and he studies a great amount. This is where Malcolm X learns about the Nation of Islam. He accepts the Nation of Islam and starts sending letters to its leader Elijah Muhammad. From here on out, Malcolm starts to improve his writing and speaking skills by taking part I debates in prison. After he gets out of prison, Malcolm is appointed minister by Elijah Muhammad himself and tries to help young people convert to Islam. Malcolm becomes a key part of the Nation of Islam. After a while, Elijah Muhammad starts to not like Malcolm as much. Malcolm broke a rule about speaking about the J.F.K. assassination and Elijah silences him for 90 days. This was only a cover for the fact that Elijah was trying to get rid of Malcolm. After hearing rumors of Malcolm’s death, he starts his own organization called Muslim Mosque, Inc. Malcolm takes a trip to Mecca in Saudi Arabia because it is the holy city. He believes if a true Muslim can visit Mecca, they should. Malcolm meets many world leaders and holds a new organization to try to unify black people to fight racism. Malcolm thinks he will die violently and never get his book published.

On Saturday night when we went to the city with our friends then we saw our dear euro singer sleeping at bus stop,talking A.P. Friends started to worry is it aright with Malcolm Lincoln, Celebrity smiled and showed his middle finger.

Clock was half one at night so waiting for bus was pointless activity. As you see from picture was Malcolm Lincoln surrounded by beer cans.

Beware! This is not fake picture, this is real and it is from good Estonian Source!

What you are thinking about it? Post your comments below and click ”I Like It”  if u liked it.

This article was written by Warzone!  - Click on Warzone to read my other articles!

Thank you for reading!