[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 554x554, images-23.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16741633 No.16741633[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Best literature that explains the narrative of their relationship?
MLK was undoubtedly platonist while Malcolm X was Aristotelian. MLK believed in objective morality as defined by God while Malcolm X was interested in solutions of any sort to help his side.
I'm curious what a good book that explores this dynamic would be.

>> No.16741646

*looks behind me*
*does backflip*
*says the n word*

>> No.16741647

>>16741633
Will Malcolm X become the new /lit/ flavor of the month? will he be the Based Black Chad of /lit/?

>> No.16741664

>>16741633
Taylor Branch's 3-parter The King Years, obviously, but their relationship was basically nonexistent: they only met once. The Penguin short biography of King is excellent btw for anyone who wants to gain a sense of what all was going on then.

>> No.16741666

>>16741647
Fuck Aristotelians, we mlk gang.

>> No.16741669

>>16741664
Sure but I don't see any other narrative that can fruitfully explain the civil rights besides them

>> No.16741702

>>16741669
The wise thing to do would be to scan Branch's bibliographies then; this way you discover writers who may still be writing even now.
You'll find what you're looking for but it's going to take a little research.

>> No.16741709

>>16741664
I think putting the narrative as "establishment" vs either "non-establishment" or mlk/x misses talking about the Civil rights movement itself and just talks biographical or memoir-esque in a sense of historical significance.

>> No.16741721

>>16741702
Thanks, I'm interested in a narrative I can attach to besides politics or sensibility crap from either side. I don't give a flying fuck how much violin music is played I want to know what they both presented beyond themselves and what makes them actual American celebrities.

>> No.16742239

>>16741666
The odds of those trips are 1:1000

>> No.16742275

>>16742239
Damn bro you're so smart lol. I wish y'all would just race war in America so I can not deal w your faggot latent-homosexual tensions and can talk about we tf I want without having to deal w some ugly fat whores/faggots trying to jerk off.
They're about the most celebritous people in America in the 20th century and your bitter ugly whores know that.
If it's reverse your whole intellectual movement is a cuck-movement to the French undermining bn and you'll never know how much you lose in bn by literally having sex w white ppl. But you don't have to ask me, ask web Dubois. Oh right, you don't read. Ask a jew to play your violin music because your dumb fat affirmative action bitch ass can't run shit without white ppl and you know it and that's why you feel so threatened

>> No.16742276

>>16742275
based schizo

>> No.16742279

>>16742276
Fuck liberals fuck race ppl. It's always 0.1% cream of the crop and ugly fat trailer park ppl in tow. Cream of the crop is more indicative in other groups

>> No.16742360

>>16741709
The irony is that at the time MLK was far more disestablishment and far more willing to break laws than Malcolm X was, not that Malcolm didn't talk a mean game because he did, obviously, but that's pretty much all he did, and what's more, he knew it. On the other hand he's far more /lit/ than MLK because his Autobiography's a fabulous piece of writing (the King estate hired an editor in the 80's to put together an 'autobiography' based on whatever could be found about his life in his own writing but this effort, I feel, was and is a complete failure -- King rarely wrote anything about himself, and almost nothing about his life in any kind of documentary or 'future memoir' kind of way, it's just not how he operated). ..Both left inspirational speeches that otoh suited their times perfectly but on the other have seemingly crippled any like or as effective endeavours by black orators ever since (anxiety of influence?). Only Jesse Jackson really kept the tradition alive through the 80's and early 90's but though he's still alive he's rarely even so much as mentioned today.
I totally agree with your concluding take though, anon.

>> No.16742371

>>16742360
Yeah but mlk's was more in terms of peaceful protest and faith in objective truth and justice while x's was in terms of groups or machinations which could lead him forward one step.
Being more lit isn't super important in terms of literature and any Plato could have done so for a Socrates.

>> No.16742392

>>16742371
Not in terms of history, but in terms of literature it's very important- and this is a literature board.
>any Plato
What? You make it sound as if the world's swarming with Socrates and Jesus Christ and Muhammad figures! It isn't.

>> No.16742497

>>16742392
I'm saying his story could be well-written and all of reality has the same truth and they exhibit divergent metaphysics

>> No.16742588

>>16742497
Right, but I'd call them different principles. You'll note however that Malcolm ultimately renounced his principles and only really became 'dangerous' in the end, when he met with King and his new principles were in the process of becoming more King-like. Even King was beginning to broaden his own horizons in the end, in the sense that his chief concern before he died was with the impoverished and the working poor.
The weird thing about Malcolm was how puritanically straight-edge he was; folks love his fiery rhetoric but how well do his *original* principles square with all that's actually going on today? Were they not barring separation otherwise incredibly right wing?

>> No.16742614

>>16742588
X was certainly very rw. I saw his interviews and really liked him when I was into politics but I'm not really speaking of them being dangerous or not. MLK fundamentally believed in peaceful protests and X did not except when it helped his goals. Even if they both lied and did the opposite purposefully or by chance, what they stood for was that aforementioned divergence

>> No.16742710

>>16741633
Ah yes, Aristotle famous didn't "believe in objective morality". Or Malcolm X for that matters.
You're retarded.

>> No.16742726

>>16742710
That's kinda exactly what he's famous for. He's a nominalist of some sort depending on your bias. Malcolm X operated like Odysseus while mlk was peaceful protesting w faith in God grounded his truth.

>> No.16742739

>>16742614
Did X ever once 'violently' protest? He did get caught up in a Harlem riot once and the cops were amazed at his ability to quell a crowd- but it was nothing that he had personally planned, he just found himself in the middle of it.
What's odd is that when Malcolm was gunned down there was mourning in many places, his body lied in state, almost 20,000 persons viewed his body, and all was calm. But when MLK was gunned down riots erupted all over the nation..
Don't mistake 'peaceful' for lack of passion, nor 'violence' with justice: it's a common mistake these days. I'm not saying that you are, but your post does have that feel.

>> No.16742744

>>16742739
I honestly dk how you got that

>> No.16742788

>>16741633
>MLK was undoubtedly platonist while Malcolm X was Aristotelian. MLK believed in objective morality
OP is retarded I guess. Malcolm X was a devout muslim, do you think he did not believe in objective morality? If we have to make this retarded association, then they're both Platonists

Also, Ill just point out that Malcolm X was more morally committed than MLK. For the former, adultery would have been unthinkable, the latter was down for it even as a pastor

>> No.16742792

>>16742744
I know what MLK stood for; Malcolm had fallen down, had converted to Sunni Islam, and by his own confession stood for international Allah. What would this have become socially? I have no idea.
You want Malcolm to represent what he himself rejected; you *want him* to have a kind of parity with MLK, pretend that there's a kind of equivalence between them, but there is not.

>> No.16742799

>>16742788
X changed from Christian to nation of Islam to Sunni. The whole point was to promote his racial narrative, he didn't ground truth except as a means to race.
All humans sin. The point was why they did what they did or their framework not the consequences of it

>> No.16742820

>>16742799
X was never a devout Christian, he converted to NOI and then he discovered that he was a bastardization of Islam, so there never was a second conversion. His attachment to fath wasn't strategic, he was clearly a true believer.

>> No.16742821

>>16742792
I'm saying there's an inverse relationship

>> No.16742822

>>16742820
After noi he was but you kinda have to by that point.

>> No.16742866

>>16742822
He was a true believer when he was under NOI too, at least according to his Autobiography (and other biographical evidence). In prison he literally had a vision of an angelic Elijah Muhammad levitating in his cell (he compared this vision to the one Paul had on the road to Damascus). Once he discovered EM was a serial adulterer he basically had a mental breakdown, but he still accepted the Quran as a religious source (while dismissing EM as a religious authority). This eventually lead him to become Sunni, which, imho, was the natural next step for him.