One issue I have never been able to resolve with any degree of staying power is my opinion of Malcolm X, and others who proposed violence and/or retaliation during the time of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. Specifically, what effect did people like Macolm have on the struggle for racial freedom. Some claim that those who represented potential violence furthered the movement because they invoked a certain amount of fear, sort of like the gun behind the smile. Others claim that they had a positive effect because white people could relate to that feeling...ie if I were being treated that way, I'd sure as hell get my gun...and as such himanized blacks for them in a way mere words couldn't. Still others claim that 'extremists' like Malcolm X made MLK seem less extreme, and as such made him the porridge that white people could eat. Some claim that they had virtually no effect. Some claim that they had a negative effect because they promoted fear, and as such people lost interest in being fair so that they could feel safe. Others claim that they had a negative effect because they promoted racism at a time when racism was the enemy. And finally some claim that they had a negative effect because they seemingly fulfilled many of the worst stereotypes white racists at the time spread about black people ( ie. violent, savage, etc.) that MLK and others were seeking to overcome with non-violence, ie they marginalized the position of moral superiority upon which Gandhi's practices depend. What do you guys think? And second question...had you lived at the time, as a black man, which one would you have followed, Malcolm X, or MLK. Try to be as realistic as possible...it's easy in hindsight to say MLK, but would you have been that patient and positive when you were facing extreme racism day to day, seeing your loved ones subjected to it, and importantly before you knew that MLK would succeed?
First of all, I disagree that Malcolm proposed violence. What Malcolm said was 'by any means necessary'. That does not necessarily mean violence. Secondly, I think some of what people like Malcolm, Black Panthers and others did was expose the hypocrasy in ways that MLK couldn't do. By carrying guns, they scared many whites. Yet whites that carried guns didn't scare other whites. They brough up the same law that entitled whites to possess firearms entitled them to possess them. In the late 80's or early 90's when the movie, Juice, featuring 2-Pac was released, the billboard had 2-pac with a gun on it. There was great outcry about this, and action taken to remove the billboard. Around that same time there was a movie which featured Keifer Southerland. The Billboard had Keifer with a pistol, but there was no public outcry. The fact is that even then Black people with guns scared whites and they thought it was teaching a bad thing. But the white guy with a gun was just a movie, and there was no outcry. So the hypocrasy they were exposing still exists, and people like Malcolm and the Black Panthers were among the first to expose it. Finally, I believe that when violence was actually used then it was a discredit to the civil rights strugge. So had I lived during that time, I don't think I would have had to chose between the two, because I don't believe they were as far apart as many people claim. I agree with 'by any means necessary' and I think that MLK chose the means that were necessary.
I disagree with your first assertion. Malcolm was asked on several occassions what any means necessary meant, and he said various things, but among those were statements like ( not exact quotes, but as close as I can remember) " Turning the other cheek just provides your oppressor with a variety of targets.", and " If they're gonna have clubs, we should have clubs. If they're gonna have knives, we should have knives. If they're gonna have guns, then you'd better believe that we're gonna have guns." Later in life he softened on some of these, as he did on the blue-eyed devil stuff, but there is no doubt that he did at times promote reciprocity in all it's forms. Haley himself said that Malcom X made these distinctions between his views and those of the Civil Rights movement for most of his career: 1) That MLK was begging for something which should be automatically given. 2) That MLK promoted having balcks unable to defend themselves against violence. 3) That MLK didn't see the permanent flaw in trying to co-exist with white people, who were inherently evil, and didn't advocate repopulation of Africa. Aside from that, though, I agree with your post, especially insofar as negative assosciations with blacks and violence. But the question is...in reality...did addressing that hypocrisy head on speed up or slow up the Civil Rights movement, irrespective of moral justification?
I think what Malcolm did was allow for the possibilty for violent action. But I believe that he allowed for the possiblity of using it as a tactic, which is different than actually advocating that as the necessary course of action. The quote about having the same weapons goes toward the point that we agreed on of hypocrisy. As far as whether it helped or hindered progress, I believe it did both. By exposing the hypocrisy it helped. But when that lead to actual incidents of cvil right's protestors using weapons in violence, I think it hurt. Some of the most powerful images from the movement are of peaceful protestors having hoses turned on them, or dogs attacking them, or being beaten, while remaining peaceful. However, even the people who included other possibilities such as Malcolm or Angela Davis had plenty of ideas to contribute such as self-reliance, human rights etc. Much of the dialogue of Malcolm's pre Mecca days definitely hindered the cause. People could focus on the Nation of Islam's belief about space ships flying around the planet and say that had a negative effect on the civil rights movement too, because it distracted from the core issues at hand.
1) I think it's a pretty fine hair you're splitting, but I'll accept it. 2) Don't think that I am criticizing Malcolm, at least not for the violence. I criticize him for his earlier racist views, and doubt that his softening on that stance was as complete or sincere as Haley claims, but I also understand it. I have never been remotely racist, so I tend to view any racism with contempt. That said, I have had the luxury of growing up with parents who weren't racist, and having never been subjected to the kind of systemic degredation that Malcom and those before him had to deal with daily. As it stands that kind of thinking...the blue-eyed devil, just isn't in me...but then I am not a product of the cauldron of racial injustice that he was. On the other hand I also can, to a degree, see how a white man raised in 1955 Alabama, say, whose parents, preachers, teachers, and friends all take racism as a given, will almost invariably continue the same line of thinking. I cannot defend it, but I can exlain it. That is my position re: MX's racism...re: the violence I am even more sympathetic. It's sort of like my position on the IRA, or PLO. I don't think it's right, " Burn baby burn" is just lowering yourselves to the standard of wrong you are fighting against...but on the other hand I in no way am convinced that were I in their place I would not think and do the same things. I would like to think I would take the righteous and ultimately successfull path that MLK suggested...as I am now, without having had to go through that I know I would...but were I a product of the times which malcolm X grew up in, I seriously wonder if that might not have been my path as well. I don't condone it, but even more than being able to explain it, I admit that it might have been my way were that my experience.
I agree that, not having walked a mile in the shoes of oppressed blacks during that period, I can't say for sure what I would do. I do know when I read about incidents, or see tapes of them, I'm mad right now to use violence, let alone if they were happening to me. When I hear about things that Israel does to innocents, I admit there is an initial gut reaction that whoever does that kind of thing doesn't deserve to live. I too grew up with Parents who weren't racists, and even carried on their practices of anti-discrimination acts back in the fifties. I feel very similar to you about hoping I would be able to hold to the course that MLK stuck to. Even then if I had time to think about things and plan ahead, I would like to think I could have. If, unprepared, I witnessed something horrible against someone else, maybe I would've resorted to retaliation.
Great thread, MacBeth. Realistically, I'd have probably followed Malcolm X. As a privileged middle-class suburban white boy, there's absolutely no way I can even imagine what it was like for African-Americans during that time. I just know they were pretty damn pissed, and rightfully so. I'm a great believer in non-violence and peace. Martin Luther King is one of the most amazing people of the 20th century and his example (and accomplishments) will carry lessons for us for centuries. But my rage probably would have led me to Malcolm X.
Malcolm X Malcolm IMO did not promote Violence but Self Defense. . .retaliation I'm more of the type from his later days However I know I could not watch a man turn a dog loose on my mother then Shoot my sister with a Water Hose and just sit there sing WE SHALL OVER COME Better to Die standing the to live on your knees I think Malcolm was the Ying to MLK's yang At that time. . . America was at a crossroads and they presented America with it's two options One without the other. .. would not have been as effective IMO Rocket River
As a Christian, I can more easily relate to MLK. Passive resistance proved fruitful in the age of mass media. But keep in mind, Malcom ultimately changed his viewpoints entirely...after his trip to Mecca where he worshiped along with white Muslims. Changed his attitude entirely.
