They both were 'radicals' of their time, and would be equally considered 'radical' if they were alive today. I am with Dr. West on this one: MLK's legacy has been 'sanitized' so that it would be easier to commercialize him. If the man had been alive today he would probably be on some government watch list with around the clock surveillance. He may have smiled more and had a 'friendlier' posture, but make no mistake about it: MLK was every bit as feisty and combative as Malcolm...Malcolm just lacked a diplomatic tone and, frankly, he scared the bejesus out of White America, probably enough to have pushed the establishment towards accepting King as the more sensible negotiating partner. In the end, Malcolm was seen as representing a more 'menacing' alternative. Ultimately, MLK's legacy was cemented by his death. As that one movie put it: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." He definitely would have worn out his welcome.
Middle-class whites have no reason to celebrate Malcolm X. As unforgiving as that sounds to some, if you spend most of your life alienating and demonizing 60-70% of the population, their democratically elected Congress is not going to give you a holiday. Hate to say it, too, but defining whites as evil and advocating separatism is actually a pretty ****ty example to set for young blacks in a predominately white society. Your logic could also justify holidays for George Wallace or the Klan, who both shamed moderate whites into supporting legislation that probably contradicted their own moral, economic and possibly even emotional self interest. You may also be imagining the negotiating power of blacks, or liberals or whatever cohort you're defining. Honestly, if JFK hadn't won the primary, picked LBJ and gotten killed, you'd have a Congress full of Barry Goldwaters pretending it wasn't an issue. King's legacy far outstrips legislative wins, it's his rejuvenating Gandhi's principles of civil disobedience and setting the stage for an entire generation's worth of social progress that make him worthy of celebration by the people and institutions of this country.
I think we should have one, but have it in Februrary. We should have Cesar Chavez day while we are at it, and have it in March. Some people don't get Good Friday off, so we need an April Holiday. I'm down for Gandhi.
You're totally correct that MLK was much more radical than what is mostly celebrated today and my own feeling is that if he lived we would look at him like we do Jesse Jackson now. Just because MLK was radical he wasn't as feisty or combative as Malcolm X because Malcolm X never embraced non-violence. As radical as MLK was the key difference of non-violence is why Malcolm X will never hold the place in US history as MLK.
That wasn't the question. The OP asked why don't we have a Malcolm X day and he later commented that Malcolm X wasn't a bad guy. He certainly exhibited a series of bad behaviors, at least through his incarceration. I don't think the USA has any days that officially observe Catholic Saints, unless you consider Valentine's Day (ironically, the Catholic Church does not recognize St. Valentine on their liturgical calendar). Churches can celebrate who they want. Which Saints in particular do you think should not be celebrated by the Catholic church?
Malcolm X certainly did many bad things but he never denied that and part of his story is him overcoming his criminal past through the power of faith. The Malcolm X of the 1930's and '40's was a bad guy but I don't think youc an say the same about the Malcolm X of the 1960's.
what about the whiny christians. what kind of typical attitude is that? i find them complaining absolutely hilarious. take christ out of our government, yet every.single.school (two high schools, two junior highs and two elementarys) in my small part of the suburbs each have church services in their buildings on sundays. oh noes, the government is trying to persecute these helpless christians. give me a ****ing break.
