The Mirage of Revolution
Long
You know *Well you don’t but I’m about to tell you*, I’ve been facing mental perplexity lately that’s sort of puzzling me. While listening to one of my role model’s speeches (Malcolm X) specifically (The Ballet or the Bullet) speech, I was convinced that what the man is saying is the truth. I believed that in fact there was no bloodless revolution. Once you state the word “Enemy” and declare an opponent/s as such then you have unconsciously declared hostility against an antagonist.
Yet, I was taking a class for ethics in Literature, and in it I was faced by the so called "Gandhi Revolution" which at that time I did not read nor know anything about. I have to admit, that I still didn't educate myself in that example, mainly because of two reasons: 1) I don't like Gandhi as a person (sleeping with women unmarried issue) *envy*2) I tried to analyze the state of events in which the British decided to leave India.
First I wanted to know what is a revolution, I went to Webster like I normally do and it disappointed me, nothing in Webster gave accurate definition of a country's revolution. Instead I found a proper definition on Dictionary, it's as follows: "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed." The word usage is excellent in this definition, this indeed what I feel revolution is.
Based on questions that I submitted on Yahoo answers and WikiAnswers I came to reach my conclusion in this matter (actually the conclusion that I've wanted to reach) *Yeaaaaah*.
Take my hand (take it), now, walk with me. There have been a British presence in India since 1612, which was mainly an economical presence. A colonial occupation was officially known after 1876, remember now, all this was during the age of the Great Britain which was an empire that controlled from the far east to the far west of the world at one point. During the occupation of India, two very important events happened WWI, and WWII. After WWII a new super power emerged to the world *I don't remember the name of that country at the moment* and the British empire transfered to what's known today "A Gay Nation" (Note: Gay means Happy). So what Am I trying to say? What I'm playing at, that since the British colonized India for over 100 year, and had an economical presence in it for over 300 years, I think that the only resource that was left for the Britain to abuse was the people (workers) of India. So, while I don't claim that Gandhi was useless; I state that he was able to cut off the only supply for which the British remained in India. Hence, With the low man power that faced this world after WWII and which affected Europe more than any other continent, England wouldn't have the man power to control a country which was as massive as India.
Okay, now I come to the reason why I'm writing this *fewwh*. Why does the blacks in the U.S. celebrate and glorify MLK (Martin Luther King Jr.) and Ignore Malcolm X or they don't give him the respect he deserves. See, MLK called for peaceful revolution which doesn't exist. He called for loving thy enemy, which is contradictory statement. On the other hand X called for true revolution. MLK philosophy was more of desegregation than revolution while X had an understanding and true vision of complete revolution.
Ok, strike that. Let's say for argument sakes that people wanted the MLK vision to become true, they failed, HE failed. After his assassination the violence increased and the White man (at the time) feared from the dawn of true revolution (X's vision) and hence the black got their wish of desegregation; Thanks to who? Malcolm X.
I just feel sad that Malcolm X doesn't get the credit for all he's done to Blacks and humanity in general, the man was truly great, and history have forever carved his name in its heart. *I'd like to also clear the air that I respect MLK and his ideals even though I may disagree with them*
THE END
A link to a full speech of the Ballet or the Bullet :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNciryImqg
