can violent action ever be justified - Page 2

Kunjufu · (#26 (**permalink**))

Jay Jay: sorry but you are just plain wrong...I cannot recall any struggle in history that was resolved by NON violence......

Gmahogany. · (#27 (**permalink**))

Kunjufu wrote:

Quote:

Jay Jay: sorry but you are just plain wrong...I cannot recall any struggle in history that was resolved by NON violence......

You didn't know, Kunjufu? LIke Malcolm said, NEGROES are the only people in the world who think it's possible to have a bloodless revolution, of course that assumes that Negroes are really looking for REVOLUTION as opposed to a better place on the plantation, which is a BIG assumption. Interestingly, bloodless doesn't apply to Negro blood being shed, just to White blood being shed,lol. OUr blood is expected to be/supposed to be, shed, even in "non violent" struggles/movements, you understand.

Kunjufu · (#28 (**permalink**))

Gmahogany. wrote:

Quote:

Kunjufu wrote:

Quote:

Jay Jay: sorry but you are just plain wrong...I cannot recall any struggle in history that was resolved by NON violence......

You didn't know, Kunjufu? LIke Malcolm said, NEGROES are the only people in the world who think it's possible to have a bloodless revolution, of course that assumes that Negroes are really looking for REVOLUTION as opposed to a better place on the plantation, which is a BIG assumption. Interestingly, bloodless doesn't apply to Negro blood being shed, just to White blood being shed,lol. OUr blood is expected to be/supposed to be, shed, even in "non violent" struggles/movements, you understand.

Gmahogany: completely agree it seems that some have a very warped idea of history....what Jay Jay is talkimng about is NOT power but empirical patronage...where benevolent white folks gives us the illussion of 'freedom'

Jay Jay · (#29 (**permalink**))

Kunjufu and Gmahogany, I suggest both of yous re-read the posts and understand, it's well known that people only read the first few lines but dont pay much attention to the rest, hence you get headlines in a newspaper and the finished article usally is the opposite to what the headline was, people then react to the headlines with no basis.

For some reason people has got it into thier heads that I reckon pacifism will cure the worlds ills, whereas just an example: the American civil rights had both pro action and pacifism for it to be overcome. This jumping in with 2 feet reacting first and thinking later needs to stop.

3rd post:

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

Catalyists and Resolutions, catalyists are pride and force to get things in motion to help commence a stuggle, resolution is swallowing of pride, courage, laying down of arms, this is eventual power which always wins.

Everybody is the armchair pied piper and never the pawn, in every case mentioned there were unique individual(s) who had the clarity of mind to rise above the nonsense of the masses and bring it all to a close, to resolve. Power always wins.

To commence a struggle is not pacifism Then there is the so called pacifism AFTER the fighting. There is a before AND after I am not talking separates ie: one over the other here. If you think I am, show me where I have done so, and ask me to explain.

No bull.

[line]
Also I was trying to look at things objectively:

1st post:

Quote:

King represents power(knowledge), same like Ghandi and Mandela(he did more good behind bars) and they came out on top, which the world recognizes. X represented force which only a section of people holds up as he done good, because.... there was an agenda.

What I'm saying here is to go out into the streets and ask a broad range of people what did these people represent, not your local area and to ask all colours of skin. You can ask virtually all black people about Malcom and in all likeyhood he will be held in high esteem. How about outside of the community, what do they think? Ask the same people about other names like MLK, Ghandi and Mandela, truth is they will hold them with a much higher esteem, some wont even know of Malcom.

Gmahogany, you dont know how to talk to people, the worst insult I gave you was to tell you that your head is soft after running at me, and get this...you even have nerve to mention it me after your torrent of abuse, but I dont dwell on it, every single thing I mentioned about tribalism whereby if one person speaks independently and sticks out from the others, he gets whacked and by use of force you have displayed blatently on cue, this is what the books I've read has told me, should I burn them? because they've got your number, I find it quite amusing, you are my clown, ok Coco!

Will your pride allow this? can you rise above it?

Gmahogany. · (#30 (**permalink**))

Kunjufu wrote:

Quote:

Gmahogany: completely agree it seems that some have a very warped idea of history....what Jay Jay is talkimng about is NOT power but empirical patronage...where benevolent white folks gives us the illussion of 'freedom'

Exactly, and white folks KNOW this, that's why whenever they peep that the "Mau Mau" are getting restless, and moving towards busting their asses, in whatever particular oppresive situation they happen to be presiding over, they are smart enough to find an out, a way to save face and cut their losses, usually by recruiting some low self esteem having/grateful for CRUMBS ******/******s, to facilitate/oversee the RevolutionaryTRANSITION, "wink wink". Of course, it's really NOT a Revolutionary transition, just a more refined,subtle way for THEM to retain all the power/resources/white skin priveleges, while hoodwinking the gullible Negro masses, into thinking they have reached the Promised land(which mainly consists of being able to have sex with/marry white folks),lol. You gotta give it to them, they are some clever mofos, or either we are exceedingly dimwitted.....who's to say??????LOL.

Funny thing about it ,is that no matter how much white folks will PRAISE Black folks for suffering abuse and mistreatment, with a smile on our face and a song in our heart, THEY don't even entertain that nonsense. Historically and presently, they are willing to shed anybody's blood, not to live in subjugation(hell, they're willing to shed folks blood even when there is no subjugation,lol), even if it's the blood of their own family/clan, a la the AMerican Revolution. The white folks who settled America felt like their British cousins didnt respect them, and wanted them to live in SUBJUGATION,(a friggin TEA TAX,set them off,lol)those white American upstarts, was not HAVING THAT SHIT,lol. They let it be known that either you are going to respect us and treat us right, or there will be bloodshed, even if it splits families (and even if we are an underdog and NO MATCH FOR U, ON PAPER), which it did. They took that attitude with people who LOOKED like them, shared their same blood!!! Why? because, they have a fundumental belief in their own worth and value, and don't feel they were put on earth to take shit off of ANYONE, including members of their OWN group. Now, juxtapose that to the NEGRO mentality. A mentality that rather than doing what it takes to stop people from subjugating them/mistreating/killing them, or engendering RESPECT for themselves, seeks to RECAST being sugjugated/mistreated and murdered into something NOBLE and RIGHTEOUS, desirable even. Being defecated on is GOOD, being slaughtered like lamb is beautiful, sacrificing your children to racist psycopaths is REDEMPTIVE and cathrartic, yeah, that's the ticket,lol. A study in psychological contrasts, indeed........

"Is peace so sweet, Is life so dear, that we would be content to live it on our knees? I can't speak for others, but as for me, Give me liberty or give me death-Patrick Henry

The above quote was Patrick Henry talking to his fellow american white folks about his willingness to shed British white folks blood, and die himself, if necessary, rather than be disrespected and sugjugated(some of them were hesitant, thought they didn't have a fighting chance, etc).Mind u, their major beef was taxation without representation(not their children being blown up their women being raped, or they themselves being hung from trees, willy nilly), and they were willing to go "hard" at their own folks, over it, not one iota of time spent pondering "loving" the their oppressors into doing right. Again, compare that to you know who..........

BTW, newsflash,in this case, hitem in the head/fighting force with force,WORKED, it worked so well that, the former colonies have surpassedtheir former "oppressor" in terms of power and influence, and they can be as thick as thieves again,aaaaahh.........

Gmahogany. · (#31 (**permalink**))

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

Kunjufu and Gmahogany, I suggest both of yous re-read the posts and understand, it's well known that people only read the first few lines but dont pay much attention to the rest, hence you get headlines in a newspaper and the finished article usally is the opposite to what the headline was, people then react to the headlines with no basis.

For some reason people has got it into thier heads that I reckon pacifism will cure the worlds ills, whereas just an example: the American civil rights had both pro action and pacifism for it to be overcome. This jumping in with 2 feet reacting first and thinking later needs to stop.

3rd post:

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

Catalyists and Resolutions, catalyists are pride and force to get things in motion to help commence a stuggle, resolution is swallowing of pride, courage, laying down of arms, this is eventual power which always wins.

Everybody is the armchair pied piper and never the pawn, in every case mentioned there were unique individual(s) who had the clarity of mind to rise above the nonsense of the masses and bring it all to a close, to resolve. Power always wins.

To commence a struggle is not pacifism Then there is the so called pacifism AFTER the fighting. There is a before AND after I am not talking separates ie: one over the other here. If you think I am, show me where I have done so, and ask me to explain.

No bull.

[line]

Also I was trying to look at things objectively:

1st post:

Quote:

King represents power(knowledge), same like Ghandi and Mandela(he did more good behind bars) and they came out on top, which the world recognizes. X represented force which only a section of people holds up as he done good, because.... there was an agenda.

What I'm saying here is to go out into the streets and ask a broad range of people what did these people represent, not your local area and to ask all colours of skin. You can ask virtually all black people about Malcom and in all likeyhood he will be held in high esteem. How about outside of the community, what do they think? Ask the same people about other names like MLK, Ghandi and Mandela, truth is they will hold them with a much higher esteem, some wont even know of Malcom.

Gmahogany, you dont know how to talk to people, the worst insult I gave you was to tell you that your head is soft after running at me, and get this...you even have nerve to mention it me after your torrent of abuse, but I dont dwell on it, every single thing I mentioned about tribalism whereby if one person speaks independently and sticks out from the others, he gets whacked and by use of force you have displayed blatently on cue, this is what the books I've read has told me, should I burn them? because they've got your number, I find it quite amusing, you are my clown, ok Coco!

Will your pride allow this? can you rise above it?

Whatever you gotta tell yourself,sweetheart. I didn't use force, I corrected the mischaracterization/oversimplification of a movement that is not some intellectual, abstract excercise, or something justread about, for me and mine. I most likely would not have responded to u at all, had you not mentioned Malcolm negatively(i don't play about Malcolm),and Ghandi positively.

My tone was harsh because as I said, this is not some abstract exercise for me, people really lived through this shit(and still deal with the vestiges of it), so to hear people glibly discussing it with philosophical platitudes and coming to all kinds of asinine conclusions, makes my blood boil. Furthermore, I am more than sick of the simplistic, junior high school, history class,untrue versionof that Movement that MOST people insist on regurgitating- Malcolm bad, King good.. white people did bad things to Black folks(but white folks are good at heart)....King made a speech, telling Black folks to love white folks no matter what, everybody kissed and made up......It makes me nauseous. I apologize for harsh tone, I can admit that I definitely see red, very quickly on topics like this.

BTW, I'm gonna let your little clown remark slide, because I am capable of extending Grace, as well as lobbing hand grenades. I'm versatile like that.

Jay Jay · (#32 (**permalink**))

Actually i didn't paint Malcom negatively, I was trying to give a world view.

Back to my first post.

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

Can violent actions ever be justified?

If it is used under the guises of courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive. It wins because it has no agenda other than the truth.

So actually.... I'm in a sort of agreement after all....doh!!!

Gmahogany. · (#33 (**permalink**))

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

Actually i didn't paint Malcom negatively, I was trying to give a world view.

Back to my first post, for the dyslexic.

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

Can violent actions ever be justified?

If it is used under the guises of courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive. It wins because it has no agenda other than the truth.

So actually.... I'm in a sort of agreement after all....doh!!!

Ok now, don't press your luck. You referred to him as sectarian and "having an agenda", as if King and GHandi didn't also have agendas. You totally dismissed the effect that HE had on the "success" of King's agenda. THey all had agendas, the only difference is, the focus of Malcolm's agenda was the well being of Black folks FIRST, since we were the ones being brutalized, and a more general concern for oppressed people worldwide(he correctly wasn't concerned for white folks at all, as they seemed to be doing quite nicely for themselves). King's agenda focus was WHITE FOLKS first(loving/forgiving/understanding them), and how Black folks could remove their foot from our asses in a way that distrurbed/distressed white folks as little as possible, with EXTRA focus on white folks and their feelings/psychic well being, saving their souls, yada yada yada, i.e. theMagical Negro phenomenon. Ghandi should not have even been mentioned(and certainly not in the way of praise), that little ****er would not have pissed to put out a fire, for ANY of our Black asses, INCLUDING King, who was so enamored with him for some inexplicable,but not really, reason......

DarkCloud · (#34 (**permalink**))

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

What I'm saying here is to go out into the streets and ask a broad range of people what did these people represent, not your local area and to ask all colours of skin. You can ask virtually all black people about Malcom and in all likeyhood he will be held in high esteem. How about outside of the community, what do they think? Ask the same people about other names like MLK, Ghandi and Mandela, truth is they will hold them with a much higher esteem, some wont even know of Malcom.

Gmahogany, you dont know how to talk to people, the worst insult I gave you was to tell you that your head is soft after running at me, and get this...you even have nerve to mention it me after your torrent of abuse, but I dont dwell on it, every single thing I mentioned about tribalism whereby if one person speaks independently and sticks out from the others, he gets whacked and by use of force you have displayed blatently on cue, this is what the books I've read has told me, should I burn them? because they've got your number, I find it quite amusing, you are my clown, ok Coco!

Will your pride allow this? can you rise above it?

Jay Jay,

People knowing more about King, Ghandi and Mandela could be attributed to a media agenda that revels/excels in the ignorance of a vast majority.

That really doesnt justify the point you are trying to push here.

Jay Jay · (#35 (**permalink**))

philosophy
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...&dict=CALD

1 the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence, the use and limits of knowledge and the principles that govern and influence moral judgment:

sectarian
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sectarian

1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.

Can violent action ever be justified? I've tried to look at it from a broad perspective, not my own personal views, but to include what others may percieve also, if I use only my view or a view from only one section of people, then it isn't really the truth, People may be vexxed because I used Ghandi, but as a point I tried to use people in differant perspectives, what do Indians think of Ghandi? Probably higher than Malcom, MLK and Mandela combined, you don't have to agree with it, you can blame it on the media if you want, but that's the way it most likely is, if there was a global head count vote between Africans and Indians regarding this issue......you know what the answer would be, thats not me being funny, that's a reality.

Regarding Malcom, like it or hate it he had a sectarian view right up until he made Hajj, afterwards he didn't have this view, it was at this point Malcom himself was transforming from force into power, the following year he was assassinated. Just because people don't like the word sectarin or the fact that it was against white people doesn't count, doesn't mean it wasn't true.

If people are vexxed by my choices of definitions and examples of force and/or power regarding violence and resolution of it, then by all means put forward alternative examples which might be more appropiate.