i don’t know if this is disingenuous or dumb but the post is obviously not literally about the people who were sitting there and the people who were abusing those who were sitting there. it’s about those who fought for equal civil rights and those who fought against it. and there’s no third party in that fight.
Agree to disagree. The group doing the sit in believe in achieving their goal through peace. At the time their was also a large portion who believed that achieving equality peacefully couldn’t happen. Then if you throw in Malcom X and his followers, you have a genuine 3rd side to the civil rights movement. People who believed MLKJ’s methods wanted equality and to be seen as no different from any other people. Malcolm X wanted the equality part, but wanted no part of mingling with white people and believed violence was the answer.
X was assassinated in 1965. Allegedly because he pissed off Islam.
MLKJ getting assassinated was in 1968 and set off what is considered to be the end of the Civil rights movement by fed law passing equal housing opportunity laws.
But there’s your three groups of people who wanted different things. The Civil rights movement wasn’t “one law that passed”. It was many over the course of over a decade, and the groups of people were going after different things.
what the hell are you talking about? I’m talking end goals and you’re talking methods. unless your take is that Malcom x didn’t really have an opinion one way or another as to whether black people should be able to eat at a restaurant, you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
You obviously dont know a ton about the civil rights movement. I just told you that some people, to simplify, wanted equal rights, but also wanted separation.
you’re not following the conversation. you’re replying to a quote that says if you’re neutral in a case of oppression you’re on the side of oppressors. it implies that people are either against oppressors or at least implicitly supporting them; they can’t claim to not have a position on it. this might shock you but Malcolm X was against the oppressors. he was not neutral, and he did not support the oppressors.
so what you’re saying is irrelevant and pointless, unless you’re trying to equate his views with the segregationists and saying he’s like a different kind of oppressor or something… which I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t.
i don’t know if this is disingenuous or dumb but the post is obviously not literally about the people who were sitting there and the people who were abusing those who were sitting there. it’s about those who fought for equal civil rights and those who fought against it. and there’s no third party in that fight.
Agree to disagree. The group doing the sit in believe in achieving their goal through peace. At the time their was also a large portion who believed that achieving equality peacefully couldn’t happen. Then if you throw in Malcom X and his followers, you have a genuine 3rd side to the civil rights movement. People who believed MLKJ’s methods wanted equality and to be seen as no different from any other people. Malcolm X wanted the equality part, but wanted no part of mingling with white people and believed violence was the answer.
X was assassinated in 1965. Allegedly because he pissed off Islam.
MLKJ getting assassinated was in 1968 and set off what is considered to be the end of the Civil rights movement by fed law passing equal housing opportunity laws.
But there’s your three groups of people who wanted different things. The Civil rights movement wasn’t “one law that passed”. It was many over the course of over a decade, and the groups of people were going after different things.
what the hell are you talking about? I’m talking end goals and you’re talking methods. unless your take is that Malcom x didn’t really have an opinion one way or another as to whether black people should be able to eat at a restaurant, you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
You obviously dont know a ton about the civil rights movement. I just told you that some people, to simplify, wanted equal rights, but also wanted separation.
you’re not following the conversation. you’re replying to a quote that says if you’re neutral in a case of oppression you’re on the side of oppressors. it implies that people are either against oppressors or at least implicitly supporting them; they can’t claim to not have a position on it. this might shock you but Malcolm X was against the oppressors. he was not neutral, and he did not support the oppressors.
so what you’re saying is irrelevant and pointless, unless you’re trying to equate his views with the segregationists and saying he’s like a different kind of oppressor or something… which I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t.