Is it still worth reading for somebody who despise the man? Both what he was (a robber) and what he became?
Why do you despise the man?
I'm not tomjen3 or even that up on Malcolm X but note from Wikipedia that when that when with the Nation of Islam he taught that "white people are 'devils'
that blacks are superior to whites, and
that the demise of the white race is imminent."
and that he split with the Nation of Islam over saying the Kennedy assassination was 'chickens coming home to roost' while they sent condolences to the family. All seems a bit iffy to me.
Your definition of racism is at odds with common dictionary definitions of the word. Leftist academics have tried to redefine the word.
As I posted above quoting from Wikipedia: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." To scientifically address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging…
If you call a person a racist, you're saying 1) that he has certain views about race, and you may also be saying 2) that he takes certain actions in line with those views. Saying someone can't be racist without power is saying "if criteria for definition 2 aren't met, then criteria for definition 1 are not met," which is silly.
Klansmen and corrupt police from the 60s were racist. So was Malcolm X. "Usually the black racist has been produced by the white racist. In most cases where you see it, it is the reaction to white racism, and if you analyze it closely, it's not really black racism... If we react to white racism with a violent reaction, to me that's not black racism. If you come to put a rope around my neck and I hang you for it, to m…
>There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past. >He's was never an angel, he just improved with age. This is actually precisely what I find interesting and relevant about Malcolm X. I read his story not just as a man that people followed, but also as a man continuously undergoing a transformation. By virtue of his intellectual integrity in the face of his lif…
His transformation is the most powerful part of this story and probably one of the reasons why so many readers of HN, who value continuous learning and self-improvement, can relate to it.
>The poster is distinguishing between discrimination and the term racism. You and the poster seem to misunderstand what racism is. Racism is a type of discrimination. The term discrimination covers a wide range of things, it doesn't only deal with race. You are free to disagree with the actual definition of racism, but you don't get to reinvent the english language. Whether or not something is racist has absolutely n…
Here is text from Wikipedia: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." So I'm not making things up. To address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging…
Apparently its a popular idea, but both of the papers Wikipedia cited as references for the existence of that idea found that racism does not require power. Furthermore, they both found that the idea is often used as an excuse for racist behavior by those who don't hold power.
Is it still worth reading for somebody who despise the man? Both what he was (a robber) and what he became?
It seems to me, in many cases, hate for Malcolm X is usually centered around his view of militancy as a viable option and his connection to the Nation of Islam. America was established through violent militancy, so I don't understand the first point. Many great conflicts have proven that as a viable solution. The second point makes many people uncomfortable because of the NOI's vocal opinions of the white race as a w…
Also -- it took the Civil War to end slavery in this country.
what a shame that his intellect ended up wasted on reactionary racism. understandable in a sense, given time and place, but still... a waste.
Black people can't be racist in any way that really counts. Racism only matters if the attitude had some sort of negative effect on the group you're racist towards. Since blacks have no real power as a whole, they can't be racist. If blacks were in the majority in terms of power, then and only then could they be racist. The ideas of Malcolm and the NOI, the panthers, etc were a perfectly sensible response to the raci…
This statement is completely false and intellectually dishonest. It doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
Do you think black people only exist in the US ?
Do you think racism does not exist in other countries and regions where the affected groups are neither black nor white ?
Have you never heard of ethnic/racist conflict between groups in Africa and South/Southeast Asia ?
Are your blinders so thick and US-centric that you cannot see anything else ?
what a shame that his intellect ended up wasted on reactionary racism. understandable in a sense, given time and place, but still... a waste.
We are fairly quick to erase, forget or forgive the racism of white leaders, but seem to have a harder time doing so for those who oppose the majority's cultural status quo. I fear this has been used historically as a way to marginalize certain voices. Certainly X is a complicated, difficult and contradictory figure, but also one who, through the autobiography, is able to capture a particular time and experience amaz…
We are fairly quick to erase, forget or forgive the racism of white leaders, but seem to have a harder time doing so for those who oppose the majority's cultural status quo. I fear this has been used historically as a way to marginalize certain voices.
Your definition of racism is at odds with common dictionary definitions of the word. Leftist academics have tried to redefine the word.
As I posted above quoting from Wikipedia: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." To scientifically address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging…
The references for that Wikipedia statement are both from the last five years. One reference is an article titled "Only white people can be racist." That's hardly an unbiased definition of a much older term.
Since 1933, the definition of racism according to Merriam-Webster has been "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Why the more recent trend of redefining a clear term to include results of racism when institutionalized by those in power? That seems disingenuous and counterproductive.
Everyone should really just read the entire Autobiography. http://www.amazon.com/The-Autobiography-Malcolm-Told-Haley/d... Also, they should spell "Malcolm" correctly. :)
Is it still worth reading for somebody who despise the man? Both what he was (a robber) and what he became?
It's a fascinating story, and a really well-written book (co-authored by Alex Haley). I don't think you have to like the man at all to get something out of the book, although it may change your opinion of him slightly. He changed his stance on a great many things over the course of his life and popular views on him often disregard this.
Here is text from Wikipedia: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." So I'm not making things up. To address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging…
Apparently its a popular idea, but both of the papers Wikipedia cited as references for the existence of that idea found that racism does not require power. Furthermore, they both found that the idea is often used as an excuse for racist behavior by those who don't hold power.
To address things scientifically you need to talk about groups not individuals in isolation. Ghettos, police profiling, stop and frisk, exonerated death sentences based on DNA testing, dog-whistle politics, voter ID laws, and U.S. media can statistically be argued to show that the U.S. is racist against racial minorities. To speak scientifically you need to address group behavior and what perpetuates that group behavior. If you want to address Black or Latino racism then show the group power which is oppressing whites.