View Full Version : Malcolm X On: Revolution

02-22-2006, 12:01 AM
What's up fam,
In many underground Hip Hop sites, the term "revolution" is often loosely thrown around. I don't feel like many people understand what a revolution is, and therefore shouldn't act like they do. With the help of Malcolm, this will hopefully educate some people on what revolution means.

I also created this thread tonight to honor Malcolm X. 41 years ago today a great leader and man was assassinated.

Malcolm X, speech (9th November, 1963)

Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution - what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you - you don't know what a revolution is. Because when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution - what was it based on? Land; the landless against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed. And you're afraid to bleed. I said, you're afraid to bleed.
As long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people, but when it comes to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls murdered, you haven't got any blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it's true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you are going to get violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else you don't even know?
If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black 'women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.
So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you that you don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. The only kind of revolution that is nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. It's the only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theater, a desegregated park, and a desegregated public toilet; you can sit down next to white folks - on the toilet. That's no revolution. Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality.

edit:sorry about the format, I couldn't figure out how to put it in nicely layed out paragraph form.

sweet sista
02-22-2006, 12:48 AM
Man that's great cause I'm kinda new to this and before reading your thread I thought of writing something similar to it asking about people's "in da wu-tang corp" opinions of Malcolm X and why do they think what they think.
and I would love to know who do you prefer or take for your leader. Malcolm X. or Martin Luther King Jr. if you were born at the period they were born?

sorry for the formating but it's fine as long as you understand what i'm saying.

And yeah maShPG i think you did a good job putting this topic in spot and never mind the formating.

02-22-2006, 01:00 AM
Welcome to the site sista. I think it's unfair that Malcolm and Martin constantly are compared, because they were both for similar goals (I guess their different methods made the comparison inevitable). At times, I would've joined Martin. Dr. King proved that non-violence does and can work, despite what Malcolm said. However, I feel like Malcolm's method is more for me. I'm simply just not the turn the other cheek person, if somebody puts their hands on me...like Malcolm said, I'll do everything in my power to make sure they don't put their hands on anybody else.

That's just me personally. For a more in depth discussion of the two, check this topic, created a while ago: http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12072

And browse through this forum room, you might find some interesting topics.

Peace, welcome to the Corp.

02-22-2006, 01:54 AM
and I would love to know who do you prefer or take for your leader. Malcolm X. or Martin Luther King Jr.



02-22-2006, 10:26 AM
I think whether a revolution is violent or not does not depend on the Revolutionary, but the oppressor they are waring with. You can call yourself a pacafist but if someone jumps on you and tries to choke you to death, you dont try to talk them out of it, you fight back with all your strength

RZA's Wife aka Goddess
02-22-2006, 10:28 AM
Black white pictures..

02-22-2006, 10:30 AM
Black white pictures..

RZA's Wife aka Goddess
02-22-2006, 10:33 AM
Oldness... It's 2000 keep up

02-22-2006, 10:47 AM
There is no future without a past.

RZA's Wife aka Goddess
02-22-2006, 10:54 AM
We live NOW, not in the future and not in the past.

02-22-2006, 10:58 AM
So what are you saying? That we shouldn't discuss anything other than what's happening at the exact moment we're speaking?

RZA's Wife aka Goddess
02-22-2006, 11:00 AM
Don't think on the future don't think on the past just live now, I know it's hard but I hope people will learn it someday. Some people are really messed up I don't know what they're reading and doing but it's not good for them.

02-22-2006, 11:01 AM
I don't agree. If you don't learn from history then history is doomed to repeat itself

RZA's Wife aka Goddess
02-22-2006, 11:02 AM

02-22-2006, 11:08 AM
Yes but his ideas are not

RZA's Wife aka Goddess
02-22-2006, 11:09 AM

dif de la rev
02-22-2006, 12:31 PM
on a note similar in thought thomas jefferson thought there should be a revolution every twenty years so as not to become satiated with what have and for the landless people to check their appointed officials.

revolutions are preceeded by revolts and rebellions like the head body and tail. one rebels others revolt as to the consequence of that outcome from which the rest commence a revolution. of thinking being and existing where your being gets uprooted to change your structure as to existence finally the thinking follows.

malcolm martin had same ideas that were like a train from nebraska is going at x speed and train from atlanta is coming at y speed where do they meet according to the thoughts and thinking put forth and considered by times living and the times since then. revolutions take sacrifice. i think malcolnm noticed that as did martin though after a while too many dead and no changes made martin see different as to peace while malcolm was for any means even arms to defend. just that with edgar and cointerpol with blacks selling out if not white america wanting to snopp in the business of blacks freedom they got sold out per se by the very establishment that tries to market them. so to know the thinking read their writings for their evolutionary rationale of this then that though still the same throughout.

02-22-2006, 05:17 PM
when does non violence work? all you get out of that is dead bodies because people didnt defend themselves.
shit even martin near the end of his days has somewhat changed his tune regarding non violence because its bullshit to let someone continue to attack and degrade you with any reprocutions.
but i do agree wit you on malcolm.

Gandhi's non-violent methods worked, and so did (arguably) Martin's.

02-23-2006, 02:40 AM
Gandhi's non-violent methods worked, and so did (arguably) Martin's.

and we all are in a bigger mess than we have ever been

02-24-2006, 02:12 PM
Gandhi's non-violent methods worked, and so did (arguably) Martin's.

Ghandi's was the only non-violent movement in history that worked as far as I can think- MLK too but as you say, only to a certain degree

02-24-2006, 05:32 PM

Much respect to Malcolm for his wise words. Bloodshed does seem inevitable in a direct fight against that adversary.

At the same time, if we are to learn from history, one at times questions the calls for sacrifice of the people and need for bloodshed, due to the fact that virtually every corrupt system (regardless of what they said at the beginning) have used those words in order to get established.

but, nobody said it would be easy.

sweet sista
02-28-2006, 01:19 AM
I have several comments to all of you though this was for RZA's wife or so-called Goddess.
first, I myself might pick Malcolm X because of his pride first and that doesn't mean that I respect Martin Luther King Jr. any less but it means that I find the qualifications of a man who leads a revolution are in Malcolm X but then I might find him too fiery and King is more capable to talk to about peace but yet King is too peaceful!! so I don't know and I think people compare between them becasue they worked in the same field.

second, I think SLATTS is right about that there is no future without past unless you're so stupid to realise its importance to make sure all the same old pains ain't gonna happen again.
AND I think we really should appericate those who suffered and died to provide a better life for us.
forth, if you ain't giving a damn about your past then I don't think you worth the efforts your grandfathers had paid for you to have what you possibly couldn't have without'em. as a matter of fact this is how it sounds to me.

Now I'm not saying keep the past in mind and never go forth with yer life. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying learn from it.

dif de la rev
02-28-2006, 01:37 AM
malcolm seemed to be under the guise of 'those who forget the past are bound to repeat it" thats why he gave knowledge of self to black people so they wouldn't get tricked and bamboozled the same way over and over again. that was a revolution of their mind. king gave or tried to instill a revolution of the heart with the whites and gov't by way of saying and showing to the world that 'am i not a man' do i not bleed the red blood. revolutions take both heart anmd mind to know the enemy and how to understand what the enemy is doing and trying to do - what kind of system is being used and thr effects and affects it has on the those subjected.

people die in revolutions like people will make sacrifices to ensure better futures. those who died and those who just put their life on line know that it was not to be in vain. that's like saying a run away slave did that for himself in all likely hood it was for the betterment of a future yet to be fully realized. may have left the topic somewhat. but revolutions take planning and daring to even think of. not like go to gun shop and then start blasting look at6 the panthers the gov't will sawop down like black flag on vermin. can you have a revolution without violence where the people just 'go on strike' segregate form enclaves where they only deal with their own kind like in rosewood. still seen as seperate yet act like equal.

what x and king did wrre marked not too far from garvey and ghandi in methods just that in their final days they seemed to have seen that the revolution they wanted or spoke of was not something that take place while trying to either assimilate or be divided by religion.