For me it has to be Malcom X, I’m not American, but I read his autobiography when I was young and it left a life long impression on me about justice and resiliency. He grew up in an extremely oppressive society, his dad was murdered and his mother was sent to the loony bin and he was clearly lost and traumatized. When he went to jail he was smart enough to be like what the hell, why am I here? Educating himself and channeling his energy into caring about others and justice transformed him into one of the most powerful and well respected leaders of his time.

He is often denigrated by Americans as violent and contrasted with King Jr. but by all accounts whenever he was in a position to project violence he chose de-escalation like during the Harlem riots and saved lives as there were people in the US in positions of military power who would have loved an excuse to do to them what they did to the indigenous across the entire country.

He was angry but principled and really set a template for me about how to be a leader and help me process my own anger and channel it into something more positive.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    King was largely reviled in his time. The almost universally loved King of today is a sanitized, defanged, ahistorical version. Mandela is another example, but there are many.

    V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution:

    What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I dunno know what the Marx quite has to do with King. Very different kinds of revolution, the main one being non violent.

      Furthermore is kind of tragic what happened with Lenin’s legacy, his thought being blunted similarly into stalinist autocracy.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I dunno know what the Marx quite has to do with King. Very different kinds of revolution, the main one being non violent.

        MLK Jr.'s march was more violent than the BLM protests were, and MLK Jr. was the moderate option compared to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. MLK Jr.'s radicalism is intentionally blunted and obscured.

        Furthermore is kind of tragic what happened with Lenin’s legacy, his thought being blunted similarly into stalinist autocracy

        It was more Kruschev onward where the Soviet system started to meaningfully diverge from Lenin.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Quit trying to pretend “tankie” means “communist” and not “authoritarian bootlicker.” MLK wasn’t even slightly a “tankie” regardless of how leftist his views were.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Quit trying to pretend “tankie” means “communist” and not “authoritarian bootlicker.”

          As soon as Liberals stop using it to mean Communist.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Tankie was originally a Trotskyist term for the people that supported tolling tanks into Hungary in the 50s.

          Of course, the term “authoritarian bootlicker” is a funny one, as its purveyors have a habit of recycling and promulgating the propaganda pushes of the US State Department and opposition to that tendency is often what gets one labelled a tankie. Like when MLK spoke positively of Castro’s revolution or a Vietnam united under Ho Chi Minh rather than targeted for bombing by the US. Though I am being generous: so many people using the term are so politically illiterate that they apply it to basically anything vaguely left that they disagree with.

          I think you’d be calling him a tankie.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 minutes ago

            You’re correct about the definition of “tankie,” but you’re taking MLK way the Hell out of context to falsely accuse him of being one.