Post: #1

Open question to everyone but especially the black guys on the forum: What do you think of the black men who opposed the civil rights movement?

I've read The Autobiography of Malcolm X at least five times, and I have infinitely more respect for him than guys like Martin Luther King and his modern successors like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

It seems to me that the American black community would be much better off today if it had followed men in the tradition of Booker T Washington, Marcus Garvey, and Malcom X in working to create self-reliant black communities, rather than men like Dubois and King who - whether it was their intention or not - created a culture of black dependence on, and alliance with, elite whites.

The progressive approach to race relations seems to have been very effective at turning American blacks into Democrats, while destroying the black community.

Post: #2

It (Civil Rights Act) allowed the government to "fix" a problem that it created in the first place. Who set up segregation? Democrats. Who made the military and federal jobs segregated? Democrats. Who was "The Party of The White Man"? Democrats. Who blocked every piece of legislation for the rights of minorities? The Democrats. Then all of a sudden in the 60's the Democrats suddenly grew a conscious. Forgive me if I'm incredulous. A fundamental human right is the right to associate with whomever you please, and the Civil Rights Act, EEOC, and other anti discrimination laws negates that. Black unemployment, literacy, and illegitimacy rates were all going until the 1960's. What changed? We were "embraced" by the progressives. One of the most interesting things that I've ever read was "The Moynihan Report". PS. I'm NOT a Republican.

Post: #3

^Bro c'mon, that is not true. The Democratic Party of pretty much 1900 and earlier was completely different, the parties roles switched at that point.

And IDK what point you are trying to make about Democrats being bad to blacks, are you saying the Republicans were good? Explain why the South ran into Nixon's arms after the Civil Rights Movement, and have been voting Republican ever since.

The Democrats had a history of being the party for minority groups - Boss Tweed, infamous for running Tammany Hall in NYC, got votes from the poor in return for providing services to them and setting the men in those families up in a job.

Post: #4

^^^ That's around the time that the Civil Right Act got passed, right? And Believe me, I have no love for Republicans either. Modern Republicans are no different when they get into power.

Post: #5

(11-20-2013 02:00 PM)Frost Wrote:  It seems to me that the American black community would be much better off today if it had followed men in the tradition of Booker T Washington, Marcus Garvey, and Malcom X in working to create self-reliant black communities, rather than men like Dubois and King who - whether it was their intention or not - created a culture of black dependence on, and alliance with, elite whites.

Dude, I don't think you even have the individuals correct here.

Booker T Washington did NOT want self-reliant black communities - he proposed something called the "Atlanta Compromise" which basically stated that blacks would submit to segregation and rule by whites in return for not getting lynched and being able to attend vocational schools. Hardly "self-reliant".

W. E. B. Du Bois proposed militant opposition to segregation and things of that nature, and is much closer to being a predecessor to Malcom X than Du Bois is - in fact, Du Bois is about as far as you can get from being Malcom X without putting on a white hood and burning crosses.

Furthermore, the black community could not turn to Malcom X to stop segregation. Violence coming from the black community would only give weight to the racists who said the world would end if the US was desegregated. MLK provided a method of protest that clearly was effective in ending segregation.

You also fail to take into account the religious aspects of the time period. Malcom X was (for most of his time spent as a Civil Rights activist) a member of the Nation of Islam, a religious movement that preached some extreme view points back in the 1960s that certainly didn't resonate with the deeply Baptist Christian majority of African Americans. MLK was a Baptist preacher, which in his community was about as high status a position one could attain. Any message he preached would be received 1000x better than what a Nation of Islam minister preached.

Post: #6

(11-20-2013 06:49 PM)vinman Wrote:  ^^^ That's around the time that the Civil Right Act got passed, right? And Believe me, I have no love for Republicans either. Modern Republicans are no different when they get into power.

IDK what part of my message you are referring to. Nixon was elected in 1968, during the Civil Rights movement.

Tammany Hall was in power right before the turn of the century.

Post: #7

(11-20-2013 06:02 PM)vinman Wrote:  It (Civil Rights Act) allowed the government to "fix" a problem that it created in the first place. Who set up segregation? Democrats. Who made the military and federal jobs segregated? Democrats. Who was "The Party of The White Man"? Democrats. Who blocked every piece of legislation for the rights of minorities? The Democrats. Then all of a sudden in the 60's the Democrats suddenly grew a conscious. Forgive me if I'm incredulous. A fundamental human right is the right to associate with whomever you please, and the Civil Rights Act, EEOC, and other anti discrimination laws negates that. Black unemployment, literacy, and illegitimacy rates were all going until the 1960's. What changed? We were "embraced" by the progressives. One of the most interesting things that I've ever read was "The Moynihan Report". PS. I'm NOT a Republican.

There was some pretty heavy infighting within the party about segregation, George Wallace ended up leaving the Democrats and managed to win a handful of southern states on a segregationist platform. Not to mention half the reason the south became solidly Republican is because of the southern strategy pushed by Goldwater and Nixon.

One group of politicians realized that blacks are people too and decided to reach out to them for a number of reasons, in doing so they managed to get their vote.

Personally I can't stand guys like Larry Elder, Shelby Steele, Clarence Thomas, etc... Most of them will proudly get up and say, "Hey, I got where I am today because of the Civil Rights Movement and affirmative action. Now that I'm here, I think we need to do away with things like that."

Post: #8

(11-20-2013 06:53 PM)MHaes Wrote:  Dude, I don't think you even have the individuals correct here.

Booker T Washington did NOT want self-reliant black communities - he proposed something called the "Atlanta Compromise" which basically stated that blacks would submit to segregation and rule by whites in return for not getting lynched and being able to attend vocational schools. Hardly "self-reliant".

W. E. B. Du Bois proposed militant opposition to segregation and things of that nature, and is much closer to being a predecessor to Malcom X than Du Bois is - in fact, Du Bois is about as far as you can get from being Malcom X without putting on a white hood and burning crosses.

Furthermore, the black community could not turn to Malcom X to stop segregation. Violence coming from the black community would only give weight to the racists who said the world would end if the US was desegregated. MLK provided a method of protest that clearly was effective in ending segregation.

You also fail to take into account the religious aspects of the time period. Malcom X was (for most of his time spent as a Civil Rights activist) a member of the Nation of Islam, a religious movement that preached some extreme view points back in the 1960s that certainly didn't resonate with the deeply Baptist Christian majority of African Americans. MLK was a Baptist preacher, which in his community was about as high status a position one could attain. Any message he preached would be received 1000x better than what a Nation of Islam minister preached.

No, Frost has got it right here. Dubbed 'the whites mans negro' by many Blacks, corporate interests saw Booker T as a great model for Blacks since they took his speech to mean that Booker T advocated being docile instead of militant and that fighting for civil rights was futile. You have to remember though that the Atlanta Compromise was in reality a serious(and genius) con game by Booker T to procure funds and consent from the industrialists and old slave masters. Hell, Andrew Carnegie gave him $600,000 after the Atlanta Compromise and a salary, which he used to invest into Tuskegee University,a trade school for Blacks. He was also able to get alot out of other White benefactors to donate to other black causes. You see Booker had to appeal to the edification of the Whites since he was one of the only figures in the community that could use their clout to help blacks get educated and skilled. Took alot of balls to do that since many Blacks saw it as selling out at the time and were deeply hurt at the stance that he seemingly took.

In relation to W.E.B. Dubois people think they had a rivalry but it was merely a difference of opinion. Booker T favored a more practical approach EARLY on, since he wanted to build up the Black communities through self reliance(a la building their own schools, roads, hospitals, newpapers etc.). He was able to accomplish ALOT in this context. He eventually wanted to get to the point that W.E.B. Dubois wanted in terms of gradually becoming more verbose politically but saw that the institutions in the black community were weak and thus they had to focus on simple matters rather than more complex ones. In simple terms, he just wanted to focus on what could be done since Blacks were at ground zero socioeconomically, and had the opportunity to create their own economic prosperity through vocational training initially rather than just bellyache militantly.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in that third paragraph though.

Post: #9

No, Du Bois was not friends with Washington, he wrote a pretty strong critiqur of Washington's strategy in Souls of Black Folk.

Washington did not strive for self-reliance, he basically just wanted Whites to stop killing Blacks and for Blacks to become farmers. He did not want Civil Rights like Du Bois demamded.

In the third parahraph I'm telling Frost that lumping Washington and Malcom X together couldn't be more wrong. Du Bois was the ideological predecessor of Malcom X, not Washington.

Also I'massuming then that you agree with everything I said about MLK > Malcom X for black people in the Civil Rights Era.

Post: #10

(11-20-2013 11:31 PM)MHaes Wrote:  No, Du Bois was not friends with Washington, he wrote a pretty strong critiqur of Washington's strategy in Souls of Black Folk.

Washington did not strive for self-reliance, he basically just wanted Whites to stop killing Blacks and for Blacks to become farmers. He did not want Civil Rights like Du Bois demamded.

In the third parahraph I'm telling Frost that lumping Washington and Malcom X together couldn't be more wrong. Du Bois was the ideological predecessor of Malcom X, not Washington.

Also I'massuming then that you agree with everything I said about MLK > Malcom X for black people in the Civil Rights Era.

Well, I never said they were friends, but that they merely had a difference of opinion.

Also, if he wanted Blacks to only become farmers why did he dedicate his life to Tuskegee University, which sought to teach Blacks trades and academic skills that are necessary to build a community? From an article called 'Re-examining Booker T. Washington: Black America’s Prophetic Leader' in the Lincoln Review Letter:

Quote:A second theme in Washington’s life, closely tied to education, was self-reliance. Tuskegee began as a Normal School and focused on training black men and women to become skilled at building, farming and other occupations so they could earn their way into mainstream American society. Washington was convinced, as he wrote in “Up From Slavery” in l90l, that “the actual sight of a first-class house that a Negro has built is ten times more potent than pages of discussion about a house that he ought to build, or perhaps could build.”

A third Washington theme was entrepreneurship. Living at a time of racism and segregation, Washington encouraged black men and women to look at the need for goods and services in their communities as an opportunity to start their own businesses. In l900, Washington founded the first black businessman’s association -- the National Negro Business League (NNBL).

Also,to say that Washington did not want civil rights is simply incorrect. The stance he took was that it was better if blacks and whites were separate but equal initially. Again, he put the focus initially on developing skills and communities and then when Blacks had made significant in those spaces, he felt that the timing would be proper to push for more political latitude. He wanted to ease into gradually demanding more politically and was known is recognized as a gradualist in academic circles. He was smart enough to extract resources and not rock the boat, since there was little to no capital in the community at the time. W.E.B. felt that pushing for political equality initially was the proper move since he was an academic elite, while Washington wanted that only after Blacks had lifted themselves up a bit and created functional communities.

While Malcolm was certainly more extreme than Washington, he certainly was a proponent of self-reliance in terms of not submitting themselves(Blacks) to subservience under the political apparatus of that time. That is what I think Frost is referring to. Not necessarily that they were ideologically similar. Conversely, MLKs strategy was effective since he did not alienate whites, while Malcolm did.

Post: #11

I think Booker T Washington has gotten and undeservedly bad rap. He definitely had some good ideas and I feel like he truly cared about his people and their ability to be self-sufficient. The problem with the civil rights movement is that while it did address the social injustices, it didn't do much to address internal problems in the community. To this day, blacks are still way too heavily reliant on whites, and I don't mean simply welfare. I'm talking about employment. How many black people are working for blacks? A black person has never given me a job. Most of us are working for whites. If whites packed up and moved to Europe tomorrow, what would become of black America?

Prior to de-segregation, there actually were self-sustaining, prosperous black communities such as Tulsa and Rosewood. Black banks, black stores, black doctors, black teachers, black lawyers. The black community in Tulsa was so successful that whites literally burned it to the ground out of envy(the excuse being a false rape charge from a white woman).

Post: #12

^Speakeasy,

Yeah, there was a section of Tulsa that was so successful it was called "The Black Wall St." Apparently that neighborhood was doing the best economically, out of the entire city. Then a huge group of people got in an elevator, and some white woman said that a black guy touched her butt, and this set off the riots that would lead to "the Black Wall St." being burned down. She didn't even say he raped her - just that he "sexually assaulted" her by touching her butt. That was the impetus for the entire race riot. Pretty sad to think that some random girl's word would end up being responsible for all the violence that followed.

Post: #13

(11-21-2013 12:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  ^Speakeasy,

Yeah, there was a section of Tulsa that was so successful it was called "The Black Wall St." Apparently that neighborhood was doing the best economically, out of the entire city. Then a huge group of people got in an elevator, and some white woman said that a black guy touched her butt, and this set off the riots that would lead to "the Black Wall St." being burned down. She didn't even say he raped her - just that he "sexually assaulted" her by touching her butt. That was the impetus for the entire race riot. Pretty sad to think that some random girl's word would end up being responsible for all the violence that followed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_YpGy9-ak

Post: #14

(11-21-2013 12:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  ^Speakeasy,

Yeah, there was a section of Tulsa that was so successful it was called "The Black Wall St." Apparently that neighborhood was doing the best economically, out of the entire city. Then a huge group of people got in an elevator, and some white woman said that a black guy touched her butt, and this set off the riots that would lead to "the Black Wall St." being burned down. She didn't even say he raped her - just that he "sexually assaulted" her by touching her butt. That was the impetus for the entire race riot. Pretty sad to think that some random girl's word would end up being responsible for all the violence that followed.

Holy fuck. I had no idea about that.

Post: #15

(11-26-2013 12:25 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 12:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  ^Speakeasy,

Yeah, there was a section of Tulsa that was so successful it was called "The Black Wall St." Apparently that neighborhood was doing the best economically, out of the entire city. Then a huge group of people got in an elevator, and some white woman said that a black guy touched her butt, and this set off the riots that would lead to "the Black Wall St." being burned down. She didn't even say he raped her - just that he "sexually assaulted" her by touching her butt. That was the impetus for the entire race riot. Pretty sad to think that some random girl's word would end up being responsible for all the violence that followed.

Holy fuck. I had no idea about that.

What happened in Rosewood, Florida in 1923 was touched off by pretty much the same thing. A white woman claimed she was raped, thus giving white men the excuse they needed to riot and destroy a self-sufficient black town.

Post: #16

Im Hispanic but being a history minor in college has made me fascinated about the civil rights movement and their leaders like Malcolm X and MLK and many others. Im a huge fan of Malcolm X. Many thought he was too radical but to me he had the right idea. MLK went along to get along, what did that got him? He got shot! Malcolm was more about making blacks be proud of their heritage and their race and help the self-esteem of black people.

Im not sure if there's many blacks who were against civil rights though. Maybe ones who were comfortable with the white power structure and who were given special privileges.

Post: #17

(11-28-2013 02:21 AM)MidWest Wrote:  Im Hispanic but being a history minor in college has made me fascinated about the civil rights movement and their leaders like Malcolm X and MLK and many others. Im a huge fan of Malcolm X. Many thought he was too radical but to me he had the right idea. MLK went along to get along, what did that got him? He got shot! Malcolm was more about making blacks be proud of their heritage and their race and help the self-esteem of black people.

Im not sure if there's many blacks who were against civil rights though. Maybe ones who were comfortable with the white power structure and who were given special privileges.

Not only did MLK get shot, but, well, look around at the contemporary American black community. His approach failed completely, and after fifty years of integration, affirmative action, and a culture which holds whites responsible for any black failure, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that we're living in the same world MLK had a dream about.

MLK demanded a nation in which American blacks depend on the charity and good will of American whites. Malcolm X (and Booker T/Garvey) said that blacks must build a nation of their own, independent of white society.

It seems obvious to me that history has confirmed Malcolm X to be right. Also, when you look at the ethnic groups in America who are doing well (Chinese, Vietnemese, Persian, Armenian, Italian, Irish) they've all become successful by building their own communities, rather than asking WASPs for special considerations.

Post: #18

(11-30-2013 04:21 PM)Frost Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 02:21 AM)MidWest Wrote:  Im Hispanic but being a history minor in college has made me fascinated about the civil rights movement and their leaders like Malcolm X and MLK and many others. Im a huge fan of Malcolm X. Many thought he was too radical but to me he had the right idea. MLK went along to get along, what did that got him? He got shot! Malcolm was more about making blacks be proud of their heritage and their race and help the self-esteem of black people.

Im not sure if there's many blacks who were against civil rights though. Maybe ones who were comfortable with the white power structure and who were given special privileges.

Not only did MLK get shot, but, well, look around at the contemporary American black community. His approach failed completely, and after fifty years of integration, affirmative action, and a culture which holds whites responsible for any black failure, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that we're living in the same world MLK had a dream about.

MLK demanded a nation in which American blacks depend on the charity and good will of American whites. Malcolm X (and Booker T/Garvey) said that blacks must build a nation of their own, independent of white society.

It seems obvious to me that history has confirmed Malcolm X to be right. Also, when you look at the ethnic groups in America who are doing well (Chinese, Vietnemese, Persian, Armenian, Italian, Irish) they've all become successful by building their own communities, rather than asking WASPs for special considerations.

I've never seen a more telling quote than this:

Quote:“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

MLK was doing what he thought was good for him and the people he represented. The Republican party(which MLK was a member of) had been thwarted in their attempts at promoting desegregation for years.

The Neo-Democrats saw the writing on the wall and decided to preempt the Republican plans and fully backed the very same people that they had oppressed for decades. It was a brilliant strategy. They sacrificed a good amount of racist whites down south, and gained many more people from the Republican side(black and white alike), mostly because they saw the Democrats finding success where the Republicans had previously failed. I don't quite understand why people didn't see that those very Democrats who were "helping" them now, were very same ones hindering them a few short years earlier.

Johnson was a brilliant scumbag. Everything he pushed through was for his political party, not for the well being of the people he pandered to. Look at the poverty and crime rates, especially in black neighborhoods, from the 1967 major funding of his programs through today. It may sound like an insensitive thing to say, but progressive liberals have for the most part unwittingly helped destroy the black family.


Note: What I wrote may be confusing in the sense that the shift in party allegiances had been a major thing from the 1860's to 1960's, with massive amounts on both sides shifting a few times over. Notably with Woodrow Wilson and FDR, there were major shifts from the Democratic side to the Republican side by a confused populace(thinking that Republicans wanted a less powerful government rather than a just as powerful, but smaller and more concentrated government).

Post: #19

(11-20-2013 02:00 PM)Frost Wrote:  I've read The Autobiography of Malcolm X at least five times, and I have infinitely more respect for him than guys like Martin Luther King and his modern successors like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Its also my favorite book also but keep in mind that Malcolm X did not write that book. Alex Hailey(later exposed that he plagiarized "Roots") wrote it with collaboration with Malcolm X but the final draft was not approved by Malcolm since he was assassinated before it was finished. You should read a much better book "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" by Manning Marable. He went over Malcolm's life by interviewing people who were there with him and checking 3rd party sources.

Mannings makes the argument that Alex Hailey was a integrationist Republican and rewrote most of the book after Malcolm's death to fit his worldview and to make it more palpable for White readers, especially the part where Malcolm X denounced Black nationalism and finally accepted Whites as good people and absolved them from racism. In reality, as Malcolm traveled overseas, he became more radicalized as he saw how the European colonizers were treating the Africans and saw Islam as the glue to hold Pan-Africanism together. Also, Malcolm never really ruled violence as an option.

Quote:It seems obvious to me that history has confirmed Malcolm X to be right. Also, when you look at the ethnic groups in America who are doing well (Chinese, Vietnemese, Persian, Armenian, Italian, Irish) they've all become successful by building their own communities, rather than asking WASPs for special considerations.

This.

Elite Blacks basically gave up their economic base/power for something as superficial as to be able to live/go to school next to Whites.

Post: #20

(11-30-2013 04:21 PM)Frost Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 02:21 AM)MidWest Wrote:  Im Hispanic but being a history minor in college has made me fascinated about the civil rights movement and their leaders like Malcolm X and MLK and many others. Im a huge fan of Malcolm X. Many thought he was too radical but to me he had the right idea. MLK went along to get along, what did that got him? He got shot! Malcolm was more about making blacks be proud of their heritage and their race and help the self-esteem of black people.

Im not sure if there's many blacks who were against civil rights though. Maybe ones who were comfortable with the white power structure and who were given special privileges.

Not only did MLK get shot, but, well, look around at the contemporary American black community. His approach failed completely, and after fifty years of integration, affirmative action, and a culture which holds whites responsible for any black failure, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that we're living in the same world MLK had a dream about.

MLK demanded a nation in which American blacks depend on the charity and good will of American whites. Malcolm X (and Booker T/Garvey) said that blacks must build a nation of their own, independent of white society.

It seems obvious to me that history has confirmed Malcolm X to be right. Also, when you look at the ethnic groups in America who are doing well (Chinese, Vietnemese, Persian, Armenian, Italian, Irish) they've all become successful by building their own communities, rather than asking WASPs for special considerations.

I think MLK's position will not work ever because whites in American society will never really allow blacks to be equal to them. For years white Americans have tried to always keep black people and Hispanics alike at the bottom. If you think back during the civil right movement in the 60s the main reason why they were able to pass the civil rights act was because of the bus boycotts. The south relied heavily on the buses which hurt them economically. Once the wallet was getting hurt by the bus boycotts, thats when they started to listen. Minorities will only be successful if they build strong communities and have economic power in America. Its the only way there will be real equality in the US.

Tariq Nasheed couldn't have said it anymore better in this clip here:





Minute 1:40 to 5:00 Kinda reminds me of Malcolm X a litte bit

Post: #21

One of the best threads I can ever recall reading on this board.

Much respect for all the contributors.

Post: #22

The "civil rights" movement imho is a VERY LARGE part of the reason black folks as a whole in America are in the very sad position we are in today.Yes segregation and Jim Crow were brought down but it was only replaced with welfare and the utter destruction of the black family.The Democratic party conned blacks into believing that they had their best interest at heart when in reality all they really cared about was the black vote.By ushering in welfare and subsidized housing they ensured that as more blacks became dependent on those things that their voter base would keep increasing.That's why today blacks vote overwhelmingly democrat.They know the republicans want to take away all the free shit that they never should have been given in the first place.

Post: #23

Some of the black guys that opposed the civil rights movement become like David Carroll.......He's on point

Quote: 70% of black babies born to single parents! leading cause of death for black men other black men! black women leads the nation in new HIV cases, 48% of black women 81-45 have some STD, the economy in the black community is ran by outsiders, you have black churches on every block, you vote 90% in every election for the same party that enslaved you , you have school were only 30% of the parents attend school board meetings!

Post: #24

One of the ugliest parts of American history--and one that gets covered up often--is that black communities often thrived during segregation. And when they did, white supremacy didn't like that because blacks were supposed to fail without white assistance in order to provide the basis for the white supremacy true.

So white supremacists invented justifications to destroy these thriving black communities.

Here are eight examples of that destruction.

Post: #25

So one of the big misconceptions I see here is that black people are much worse off than they were pre civil rights, and that's just not true. Ask any black person who was around back then and they'll tell you. Sure there are still a lot of broke blacks, but the black middle class is much larger than it has ever been, and by every measure of well being black people are doing better now than at any previous time in US history. In addition, some of the things people are attributing to consequences of the civil rights act have nothing to do with it.

For example, more black people are on welfare now because back then blacks did not have access to social services. Instead they did the jobs that are no filled by mexican illegal immigrants, like cleaning houses and picking berries in the fields, jobs that nobody wants to do. Now before you go ahead and criticize black people for being lazy welfare queens, ask yourself how many white women would opt to work cleaning people's houses or picking strawberries in the fields over collecting welfare checks? Now however you feel about social welfare programs in general is a completely different issue from civil rights. FDR and the great society predates the civil rights movement.

If you ask me, the worst thing to happen to black people was the crack epidemic. It resulted in almost an entire generation
winding up dead, in jail, or hopelessly addicted to drugs. It suppled street gangs with money to buy a level of weaponry that was previously inaccessible to them. It resulted in a huge transfer of wealth out of the black community. It also put enough money into the hands of drug dealers and gangsters such that vastly exceeded everybody else in the community in wealth, and became the role models that kids looked up to.

Also, a lot of people talk like the civil rights movement was the brainchild of a few influential people. It wasn't. There were riots and chaos in the streets and shit was getting close to being a full blown insurrection by a significant portion of the population. The foreign communist powers were trying to exploit the issue by recruiting blacks (Paul Robeson). The US government basically had the choice of either granting civil rights or declaring war against black people within their own borders (which would have a been a disaster during the cold war). If you look at some of the stuff that isn't celebrated by our history books, you'll find that there was a lot more radicalism going on than people would have you believe. People like MLK are celebrated while Huey P Newton and the Black Panthers are demonized because the people in charge want to discourage radicalism and social disruption as a means of political agitation.

I'd even go as far as to argue that civil rights not being granted earlier is a big problem for white middle class people now. Mainly because there's a huge disconnect between blacks and white as to the current status of the country. A lot of middle class white people are saying "the country is going to shit," and justifiably so because the blue collar middle class in general has been taking it in the ass lately. Shit for black people on the other hand has been so bad in the past that even this reduced economic level for the middle class, which was previously inaccessible to them, is a step up; so it doesn't really compute.

Anyway, this is a pretty great thread. It's always hard to write about this type of stuff without drifting into troll territory. Hopefully I haven't here.