Ilhan Omar controversy

[In the Corn]

Doing the former is no way to stop the latter from happening. I think a lot of the criticism she faces is unfair and over the top, but I also agree with B-Fly's assessment. I also disagree with her rhetorical tactics. The new guard of progressives isn't afraid to be loud and controversial with their positions. To an extent, that can be a good thing, but at times, I don't think it does them or their causes any favors as it alienates potential allies in the middle. Then again, it works for Trump, so who knows? Fight fire with fire and all. Not my preferred method.

I don't think Trump's bombastic rhetoric reaches the middle. I, also, don't think the new progressives bombastic rhetoric reaches the middle.

This form of discourse from both sides is undignified.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I don't disagree that she may be trying to start a conversation, but she's quickly losing credibility to be the conversation. Being bombastic from the start rarely leads you to being someone that people feel they want to have dialogue. It's like the belligerent regular drunk at the bar. Everyone knows he's there and is gonna talk smack, but he's continually dismissed.

Or those pesky Negroes, demanding to sit at the lunch counter or ride in the front of the bus! They'd have more credibility if they were just a bit more respectful.

[DMT]

Yea they were talking on the ESPN broadcast last night about how unpopular Jackie Robinson was within baseball circles when he retired because of him being too outspoken. Being critical of a leader who is a member of a marginalized group for being too outspoken is rarely a good position in hindsight.

[The Feral Slasher]

It sort of feels like the message is that "All the Muslims need to understand that real Americans are deeply hurt by the events of 9/11, they need to be more understanding"

[B-Fly]

Yea they were talking on the ESPN broadcast last night about how unpopular Jackie Robinson was within baseball circles when he retired because of him being too outspoken. Being critical of a leader who is a member of a marginalized group for being too outspoken is rarely a good position in hindsight.

Who generated more tangible positive change between MLK and Malcolm X, though? I think what ITC is saying is that an MLK-type approach of presenting the desired change/outcome in more hopeful terms with more universal appeals tends to "work" better than a more overtly confrontational and divisive approach, assuming the goals are largely the same. I think I see the same between Bernie Sanders' rhetorical approach to promoting progressive change versus the rhetorical style of the young guns.

[DMT]

Who generated more tangible positive change between MLK and Malcolm X, though? I think what ITC is saying is that an MLK-type approach of presenting the desired change/outcome in more hopeful terms with more universal appeals tends to "work" better than a more overtly confrontational and divisive approach, assuming the goals are largely the same. I think I see the same between Bernie Sanders' rhetorical approach to promoting progressive change versus the rhetorical style of the young guns.

Yea I'm not arguing that point, but certainly Malcolm X still had a huge impact, no? White people who said he should adopt a different approach were wrong then and they're wrong now IMO. There is room for both approaches and it's not our place to determine which style those leaders should adopt.

ETA: that's almost like criticizing Ty Cobb because he wasn't Babe Ruth.

[B-Fly]

Yea I'm not arguing that point, but certainly Malcolm X still had a huge impact, no? White people who said he should adopt a different approach were wrong then and they're wrong now IMO. There is room for both approaches and it's not our place to determine which style those leaders should adopt.

ETA: that's almost like criticizing Ty Cobb because he wasn't Babe Ruth.

I think there is a place for both approaches. I think the Malcolm X approach is always going to generate stronger and more aggressive responses, though, and that it's a bit simplistic to say that "white people's" criticism of aggressive/divisive calls for change is "wrong". Maybe it is and will be proven "wrong" by the arc of history, but it's also natural and instinctive and expected, so when an activist chooses that approach, the activist is essentially doing so knowing the likely response, which is all I've really been saying.

[DMT]

I think there is a place for both approaches. I think the Malcolm X approach is always going to generate stronger and more aggressive responses, though, and that it's a bit simplistic to say that "white people's" criticism of aggressive/divisive calls for change is "wrong". Maybe it is and will be proven "wrong" by the arc of history, but it's also natural and instinctive and expected, so when an activist chooses that approach, the activist is essentially doing so knowing the likely response, which is all I've really been saying.

Yep, agreed.

[The Feral Slasher]

Who generated more tangible positive change between MLK and Malcolm X, though? I think what ITC is saying is that an MLK-type approach of presenting the desired change/outcome in more hopeful terms with more universal appeals tends to "work" better than a more overtly confrontational and divisive approach, assuming the goals are largely the same. I think I see the same between Bernie Sanders' rhetorical approach to promoting progressive change versus the rhetorical style of the young guns.

It's been 18 years since 9/11 - so if her beliefs about Muslims being second class citizens are true (which I'm not trying to address in this post) - how well has the strategy of not being confrontational worked ?

[The Feral Slasher]

Here is a link to the transcript of what they call the "key section of the speech"

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/read-the-transcript-of-rep-ilhan-omars-speech-20190415/

---

Comment

Post Cancel

[In the Corn]

Who generated more tangible positive change between MLK and Malcolm X, though? I think what ITC is saying is that an MLK-type approach of presenting the desired change/outcome in more hopeful terms with more universal appeals tends to "work" better than a more overtly confrontational and divisive approach, assuming the goals are largely the same. I think I see the same between Bernie Sanders' rhetorical approach to promoting progressive change versus the rhetorical style of the young guns.

This was the exact analogy I was going to use.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I think there is a place for both approaches. I think the Malcolm X approach is always going to generate stronger and more aggressive responses, though, and that it's a bit simplistic to say that "white people's" criticism of aggressive/divisive calls for change is "wrong". Maybe it is and will be proven "wrong" by the arc of history, but it's also natural and instinctive and expected, so when an activist chooses that approach, the activist is essentially doing so knowing the likely response, which is all I've really been saying.

I think MLK was perceived as far more divisive at the time than you are giving credit for. He did go to jail, after all, and someone hated him enough to murder him. He was really quite the troublemaker, far more than Ilhan Omar now. He's viewed as hopeful because we can see that theme in his message now, but I don't think that was the dominant message white people were getting from him at the time.

[B-Fly]

I think MLK was perceived as far more divisive at the time than you are giving credit for. He did go to jail, after all, and someone hated him enough to murder him. He was really quite the troublemaker, far more than Ilhan Omar now. He's viewed as hopeful because we can see that theme in his message now, but I don't think that was the dominant message white people were getting from him at the time.

All fair, but I also think that MLK helped generate the level of political and public support necessary to spark and deliver the civil rights legislation under the LBJ Administration, which Malcolm X was never going to do. I still think that, by comparison, Sanders and Warren are presenting the moral case for progressive policies and the policy proposals in a way that can build political and public support, perhaps more so at least at this point in history than AOC and Omar. And I think it's by appealing more universally and with less overt contempt for or mockery of those segments of the population that start off more resistant or skeptical but are potentially persuadable.

[Kevin Seitzer]

All fair, but I also think that MLK helped generate the level of political and public support necessary to spark and deliver the civil rights legislation under the LBJ Administration, which Malcolm X was never going to do. I still think that, by comparison, Sanders and Warren are presenting the moral case for progressive policies and the policy proposals in a way that can build political and public support, perhaps more so at least at this point in history than AOC and Omar. And I think it's by appealing more universally and with less overt contempt for or mockery of those segments of the population that start off more resistant or skeptical but are potentially persuadable.

I agree that MLK worked to generate support in a way that Malcolm X didn't believe was feasible and thus didn't do. And that ultimately with a lot of people (one could question whether it was the majority), MLK's approach won the day. But I think at the same time, Malcolm X could fairly argue that society was never going to (and perhaps hasn't yet) taken care of African Americans in anything approaching fairness, and they needed to look out for themselves. I believe in the MLK approach. I also believe it is the more difficult path. I don't fault Malcolm X for the approach he took.

I would also say that I don't see AOC and Omar as expressing contempt and mockery for their opponents. If you read the transcript that Feral posted, this supposedly inflammatory speech is actually quite reasoned. I see them mostly refusing to do what MLK also refused to do, which is to quit calling a spade a spade because it makes people uncomfortable. MLK made people very uncomfortable. Many people perceived him as attacking them. I don't think that was true, and I also don't think AOC and Omar are attacking people just because people perceive it that way.

[DMT]

Good posts!