I think I 'get it', regardless of my being white. Its interesting though to see how you (as usual) think my skin colour might play a part in my perception as opposed to my cultural identity. NT, you might not believe this, but it is actually possible to 'get' what some one is saying and still disagree with them, regardless of the colour of your skin... or are you going to tell me that all African Americans 'get' and agree with Malcolm X?

...in America. For the other 95% of the human race he is no more significant than the Baader-Meinhof gang or Che Guverra. Faded icons from an age of madness whose impact was fleeting and whose legacy is dubious. Did Malcolm X make a difference? or did he just further polarize African Americans against the European Americans?

I'm not an expert on Malcolm X. I've seen the film, read a book and debated him in a classroom, thats it. As far as I can see, he was a man whos profound belief in his own perception led him into disaster and did nothing for African Americans except generate a sense of victimhood.

No more than all African-Americans "get" or agreed with Martin Luther King, Muhammad Ali, Barack Obama or Oprah Winfrey. Black people are not all of one mind.

I didn't say the reason most White people don't get why Malcolm X is so admired and respected is because they're White. The reason White people like you don't get Malcolm X is because you don't understand how he spoke very directly about how White supremacy created a psychosis of Black inferiority in the minds of African Americans. Telling people whom had always cast their eyes downward in the presence of their "betters" that they too were Americans did not please the gatekeepers of the racistl status quo.

The color of your skin isn't even relevant. It's your mindset that is.



If saying Blacks shouldn't beg Whites for their dignity and freedom is polarizing then Malcolm X was polarizing. If saying Blacks shouldn't take drugs, drink alcohol, eat unclean animals or engage in vices is polarizing then Malcolm X was polarizing. If saying White people can't give you the rights you're born with as a free human being is polarizing then Malcolm X was polarizing. If saying Black people must clean themselves up, take care of their families and strengthen their own communities and respect themselves before they could expect to deserve the respect of anyone else is polarizing then Malcolm X was polarizing.

Did Malcolm X make a difference? I believe so. He demonstrated that even a man who lives a life of ignorance, wickedness and relative uselessness can educate himself, take pride in himself and motivate himself to become a symbol of redemption and positivity. If the other 95% of the human race doesn't find that significant then I submit that percentage of the human race is willfully blind or blissfully ignorant.

If telling the truth is polarizing then you're damn right that Malcolm X was polarizing. Malcolm X didn't have to "further polarize" Blacks against Whites. Read a well-written history book you can find out all you need to know.



Apparently you've learned just enough to make it possible for you to form a opinion about Malcolm X, but not enough to qualify as well-informed.

Yes. This I agree with though I'm not sure how you recncile this with 'Malcolm's crossover appeal for many Whites is somewhat limited. Some people "get it" and some do not'.

Perhaps we two have a communications break down?


You seem to be hooked on the word 'polarizing', may I remaind you that you used this word to describe Maclom X first.

I've read a great many hstory books actually, very few mention Malcom X. Whether or not with decades of hindsight you actually need to do deep research on a person to understand their general impact seems a bit dubious to me. If Malcom X were as you describe him, then I don't think he would be so obscure. The obvious comparison is with Martin Luther King, who's speeches are taught all over the world. Malcom X seems to me, to the central icon of a cult of personality. I'm not convinced that he made as great a difference as you claim. African Americans do not seem to have 'grown' or 'changed' as a group of people due to Malcolm X. Their success in dealing with the European Americans seems to stem for multiple sources, for, as you just said, African Americans do not agree on all issues.

What I wonder is, if any political figure can ever have the impact Malcolm X strived for. ML King is probably internationally iconic, on a level with Ghandi and Mandela, because he wasn't polarizing.


Maybe so, or perhaps I'm just not that impressed with how Malcolm X justified his decisions or went about his acheivements. There are other, civil rights figures who did far better, sometimes with much less static. I don't think reading more books will change that percpetion, unless the books I've already read were all deeply flawed.

Moif, I could not disagree more with your perception of Malcolm X.

Frankly, I think it is born of ignorance.

First of all, the notion that Malcolm nurtured a sense of victimhood blatantly lumps him in with the myth of a demagouge. Malcolm X's sole pursuit was a self-sustaining, autonomous Black community. He asked for no help from whites, and lingered in the injuries of the past exactly as long as took to make a point about Black's having to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Now did his enrollment in the nation of islam come with a lot of "white men were created by mad scientist in the Caucus mountains" rhetoric? yeah. But the glory of Malcolm X was his ability to leave that behind, just as he left street life behind. That reinvention speaks to the best in America, I'd argue he was the more mainstream, quintessential American than any other civil rights leader. After all, Malcolm was schooled in a white neighborhood, and made his fame on white-hosted talk shows, while Martin attended a black college and presided over the least integrated institution in America, the black church.

Secondly, the dichotomy between Malcom and Martin is false. They both played off each other's strengths. As Martin became more pacifist, Malcolm became more militant, later Malcolm became more pacifist and all but joined Matin Luther King's movement. After Malcolm died Martin discredited integration as a sole objective saying "self-segregation may be necessary for a time." Martin became more radical to fill Malcolm's shoes. Before Malcolm, the mainstream media called Martin a Negro agitator, a race-bating preacher, etc. Suddenly, when Malcolm came along, the media was parsing "I Have A Dream" to co-op the vision of Martin Luther King, as if it had been there's all along.




Not in Africa, not in Jamaica. 1970s Reggae artist Max Romeo has a song that begins "People talk about Malcolm [x]. People talk about Marcus [Garvey.] But no one remembers Martin Luther King." Only in the white world is MLK the more iconic figure. In Africa, Malcolm is the one on t-shirts and murals, and in black America, I'd generalize that the two are taught hand-in-hand, like geminis of the same racial cause. Think about that. Who do you think is a better judge of a civil rights leader's worth? The oppressed or the oppressor?

Well unless you've read books about me, seen the film of my life, debated the life and times of moif in a class room or on intenet fora, then frankly I don't think you know me well enough to tell me I am ignorant simply because I disagree with a popular perception of Malcolm X.

I'm also at pains to understand why my personal understanding matters at all in this debate? Answer my points or leave me alone.


Neither. Both sides are subject to perception. The better judge would be the impartial onlooker and with regards to American civil rights movements that would be some one as far removed from America as possible. A Chinese farmer perhaps.

I've never heard of Max Romeo, but if we're going to rely on personal, subjective evidence then I'd like to tell you that the only Africans I've debated race with (ethnic Indians from Kenya) all knew who Martin Luther King was. We all know who Malcolm X was too, now that there is a film of his life. I wonder how many people on planet Earth knew of him before they saw Denzel Washington playing the part or have heard of him since?

Its more or less besides the point any way. The point was made on the basis of nighttimers quote.......I shall repeat myself for the benefit of the Malcolm X appreciate fan club, I don't see any evidence to support the contention that the 'white man' is the greatest murderer on Earth.

From what I can see, murder is pretty much a universal trait, and Africans and Asians do not lag behind in this trend at all. All those slaves which are refered to nighttimers quote, were bought from Africans. Despite Malcolm X's assertion that the 'white man is the greatest kidnapper on earth', in point of fact the 'white man' was merely the last link in a chain which stretches far back into history. All peoples on planet Earth have a history of racism, murder, slavery and atrocity. There is not one single group of people who stand alone as innocent victims.

What Malcolm X and his supporters never mention is it was also 'the white man' who put an end to slavery. That doesn't absolve any one of anything, but nor does the one sided ranting and accusations of Malcolm X with regards to 'the white man' carry any weight either. Malcolm X was a hypocrite who used hatred as a tool just as surely as any racist.


And what exactly is the 'white world' DYT?


edited for spelling

No, the thing is your image of malcolm x IS popular perception. You yourself said that he's regarded as a polarizing figure the world over. You said that Europe backs your view of Malcolm... And you said you hadn't read his book! So yeah, when someone comes up to me and tells me the same half-truth you hear everywhere and says, but you know, I've really never read that book, then I conclude what I concluded. Apologies if 'ignorance' is a brash accusation, but I feel I would have been doing you a disservice if I hadn't pointed out how I felt about the matter.



Except that a Chinese farmer doesn't know the peculiarities of race in America like those who've been on the blunt end of it. When you've been on the pleasant end of an racial divide, its easy not to think about the details that put you there. It's easier to appreciate the self-congratulatory parsings of "I Have A Dream," than to read the writing of Malcolm X.



The fact that Malcolm X is less celebrated on American Postal stamps, literature, textbooks etc only makes his popularity more remarkable.



Look, I agree that America has done more good than evil in this world. We may have problems, but our racial problems pale inc comparison, to say, Mexico's. We'll all be looking like Barack Obama and singing spirituals together, and Mexico will probably still be divided starkly on the basis of race.

I credit this to America's knack for self-invention, which Malcolm X thoroughly embodies. Not only does he call on poor, Black criminals to make a transformation similar to his own, he calls on white people to thoroughly regard the underbelly of America's greatness, and in doing so, live up to the promise of our constitution. Are his accusations of America being a mass murder overstated? Yes, they are. But he was speaking in an post-war era when America's inherit goodness was equally if not more overstated. Hyperbolic rhetoric was his needle to pop the American self-congratulatory bubble, which if AD is any sign, needs a lot more popping.



OK...

Who do you think writes those textbooks you speak of that celebrate Martin over Malcolm?
Who write probably 90 percent of the political ink in Europe and America?
Who decides which civil rights leader deserves a monument on the national mall?
What color president decides whether he's going to meet with Malcolm or Martin?
What color south African reporter draws parallels from Nelson Mandella's crusade to American Civil Rights?
What color president ratified a Martin Luther King Day?
What color governors make Martin Luther King Highways?
What color activists led the protests against the Malcolm X stamp?
What color film critics panned Malcolm X the movie for celebrating someone they viewed as a racial villain?
What color TV Newscasters discredited Malcolm in his prime?
What color editors chose to cover Martin's assassination more than Malcolm's?
When white Affirmative Action critics need proof that AA goes against the promise of civil rights, whose speech do they parse?


If you could find me evidence that the Black community, in all its complexity and diversity, largely agrees that Malcolm was far too "violent" or "radical" or something, then I would buy your point. But I see the opposite: I see that Malcolm continues to be a thought-provoking figure who brings the Black community together, rather than divide it apart. It seems to me that Malcolm's symbolic currency is as valued as Martin's among the Black community, worldwide.

Yet you wouldn't know that from the worldwide coverage of him.

And the non-Black people who "get" Malcolm (in whatever varying degrees of understanding "get" implies) are probably better in tune with the qualms of blacks in the 1960s than those who merely idolize Martin -- without reading his later, radical work -- and villainize Malcolm -- without even reading his book.

No I didn't say that. nighttimer used the word 'polarizing', and in my response I used his description.

I also wondered if perhaps ML King was better known/respected than Malcolm X because he wasn't considered polarizing which is not the same as saying 'Malcolm X is regarded as a polarizing figure the world over'.

Nope

Didn't say that either, though its true enough.

Well I suggest you re-read what I actually wrote then because you don't seem to have understood it very well.


An impartial observor is valued precisely because they don't know the peculiarities or the 'blunt end'. Thats the point. Any one emotionally involved will not be capable of divorcing their own bias.

It is the principle which matters. Only principle can stand inviolate of the emotional accusations and counter accusations.


Popuarity is not a meaure of value. If it were, then blonde painted pop idols would be more important than any one else

And am I to assume that the answer to these questions is 'the white world'?


Why? My point has nothing to do with the black community agreeing that Malcolm X was too "violent" or "radical" or something... My point has nothing to do with Malcolm X at all. I merely mentioned in passing that I don't think he is any worth quoting in a debate regarding racism, white perpertrated or otherwise. I'm sorry if I profaned your holy icon, but alas I do not subscribe to your world view with its 'white world' and 'world wide Black community'.

Moif, if I misunderstood your initial point, I apologize -- but its only because you opened up the floodgates for a full-fledged Malcolm debate when you called him 'ignorant.' that he discovered islam, so now islam is truth. My points about reinvention spoke directly to that accusation.

The fact is that civil rights lions are largely misunderstood. King was a full-fledged proponent of AA, yet you have people this board saying that his vision laid out in "I Have A Dream" would not have allowed for AA.

You have people who tout his dream of colorblind integration, without knowing anything about his black nationalist views, which he deliberately suppressed to make himself a foil to Malcolm. Martin Luther King was both an integrationalist and one of the starkest Black separatists America has ever know. He presided over an all black church circuit, and while so-called "Black nationalists" were calling him an uncle tom from the safety of a mostly white university or a white-hosted TV show, he was going out of is way to entrench himself in southern poor communities.

And finally, you have people who totally mis-understand the quest of Malcolm X. Malcolm X never perpetrated one act of violence, even at a time when he had a several hundred strong army of Islamic warriors who were willing to do the deed. He was called the only man who could start or stop a race riot and he stopped several. He turned misplaced rage into an instrument for democratization: America should celebrate that even if his tone was hyperbolic. I see little distinction or contradiction between the content of Malcolm's "Ballot and the Bullet," and Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." The distinction that seems to be made is the racial context of the speaker.

I begun to notice the things I like to respond to most are the one's I find the funniest.



I almost choked.

I think you've fallen victim to a combination of the very conscious efforts of the contemporary media of the time to demonize Malcolm X because he was less concillatory than the authorities wished him to be.

The same was done to MLK in many corners, but after his assassination, his reputation was rehabilitated. During his life he was frequently portrayed as an agitator, a race-baiting peddler of victim-hood too.

The was true of neither man.

I find it so funny because this particular point is so obviously off the mark that, if you thought about it in full context you'd probably have picked up on it long before I did.

Just the same. Saying Malcolm X generated a sense of victimhood in African-Americans is like saying all those speeches by Churchill generated a sense of victimhood in Britons.

It was the bombs, the lynchings, the stabbing, and beatings, and daily indignities of lifef that generated a sense of victimhood. When children die for attending Sunday school at the wrong church on the wrong day, victimhood is a given.

I mean the man died in 1965, during his lifetime there was nothing one man's speech could do to contribute anymore to a sense victimhood than the actions of racists Americans.

turnea.

Very well then. I'm willing to accept your description of Malcolm X. We've debated often enough in the past and I trust you to be honest within the boundries of your perception. Perhaps I have fallen victim to a campaign of disinformation. I did say however that I did not think the man was stupid, merely campaigning in vain, due to ignorance.

Of course, its completely possible that I am the ignorant one and the decades of hindsight have not been kind to Malcolm X. Be that as it may. I still stand by my reaction to the quote offered by nighttimer, even if the circumstances alleviate his over all tone somewhat. That quote by Malcolm X (which fits my possibly flawed perception of the man) is not an argument that will see an end to racism.


How many Britons have you spoken to of late?

I am not disagreeing with drew’s post, but expounding on it. Malcolm X was a rather complex person who developed existentially. I hate to offend anyone, but I don’t believe people are born with any type of human nature, especially one that places one in a hopeless pit of sin. Rather, being precedes essence.

Failure to realize this gives some people a one dimensional view of Malcolm. That, in my opinion, is hurtful.

I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X, though it was many years ago, and saw Spike Lee's movie. I see three steps in Malcolm’s becoming, though that in itself is an oversimplification.

It has been so long since I read Malcolm’s autobiography that I looked for some supplementary information.

I found this interesting time-line from “Malcolm X: A Research Site.”

The first becoming of Malcolm X

Malcolm Little was born in Omaha, Nebraska in 1925. By the time he was 15 he bounced from foster home to foster home. He became a small-time criminal and ended up in prison in Massachusetts.



In short Malcolm was a hustler.

The second becoming of Malcolm X

While in prison, Malcolm embraced Islam and Became Malcolm X. Upon release, he studied for the ministry under Elijah Muhammad. At this stage in his life I would say Malcolm was still a Hustler, but a Hustler for Elijah Muhammad. That’s not the end of the story. Malcolm was still becoming.

The third becoming of Malcolm X

In April, 1964, Malcolm makes his hijj or once in a lifetime trip to Mecca.

The hijj apparently enlightened Malcolm.



The statement, seems somewhat more charitable than white people have afforded have afforded Malcolm. After the trip to Mecca, Malcvom’s break with Elijah Muhammad begins.

It was after Mecca, that Malcolm became self-actualized. He was his own man. He had become something different than Malcolm Little or the previous Malcolm X.

In February, 1965 Malcolm was assassinated. He was only 40-years-old. Malcolm had become his own man. It’s not how he found life, but how he was finding it.

What would Malcolm have become had he lived? We just don’t know.

We do know enough to know that he became something different than he was.

We do ourselves an injustice by pigeonholing him.

Here’s a link to the time-line of Malcolm’s life and the above quotations:

http://www.brothermalcolm.net/mxtimeline.html

Here’s the home page link to the Malcolm X Research Site:

http://www.brothermalcolm.net/index.html