View Poll Results: Malcolm X

7. You may not vote on this poll
  • ILE

    0 0%
  • SEI

    0 0%
  • ESE

    0 0%
  • LII

    0 0%
  • EIE

    4 57.14%
  • LSI

    0 0%
  • SLE

    0 0%
  • IEI

    0 0%
  • SEE

    0 0%
  • ILI

    0 0%
  • LIE

    1 14.29%
  • ESI

    0 0%
  • LSE

    1 14.29%
  • EII

    0 0%
  • IEE

    0 0%
  • SLI

    1 14.29%
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Malcolm X

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    30 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Malcolm X

    The pleasant modern crime


    Do not speak to me of the martyrdom

    of men who die to be remembered

    in some parish meeting.

    I do not believe in death

    even if I die myself

    and violets like sea-shells

    echo me.

    But this man,

    this dreamer

    with his lips thick with words

    will speak no more

    and every winter

    when the freezing air

    stings like ice, I shall breathe

    his breath and a dismal lament

    in the nights full of rifle-shots.

    He was the sun that adorned

    the western sky and

    melted the pupils of the tiger

    while they went in search

    of their stripes.

    He said: “Damn you,

    white men, we have been

    taken in for too long. Nothing

    is sacred today: neither your

    white face nor the territory

    which divides us

    until those voices are heard

    which cower now under spasms

    of fear.”

    Do not speak to me of living,

    life is obscene with crowds

    of blacks and their dirty white souls,

    death is my throbbing,

    what could have been

    is not for him nor for me

    but what could still be

    floods my belly until I drown.

    Sonia Sanchez

    - from MALCOLM X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable; p. 487: The al-Qaeda terrorist

    network is also sufficiently aware of American racial politics to make sharp distinctions between

    mainstream African-American leaders and black revolutionaries like Malcolm. An al-Qaeda video

    released following the election of Barack Obama in November 2008 described the president-elect as a

    “race traitor” and “hypocrite” when compared to Malcolm X. “And in [Barack Obama] and Colin

    Powell, [Condoleezza] Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him)

    concerning ‘house Negroes’ are confirmed,” declared al-Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. Malcolm

    was described as central to the political traditions of “honorable black Americans.” What is truly ironic

    is that Malcolm would certainly have condemned the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, as

    representing the negation of Islam’s core tenets. A religion based on universal compassion and respect

    for the teachings of the Torah and the Gospels, Malcolm would have known, holds no common ground

    with those who employ terror as a tool for politics. Malcolm’s personal journey of self-discovery, the

    quest for God, led him toward peace and away from violence.

    But there is one more legacy that may shape the memory of Malcolm: the politics of radical

    humanism. James Baldwin’s first real encounter with Malcolm occurred in 1961, when he was asked

    to moderate a radio program panel that included the Nation of Islam leader. Malcolm had been invited

    to debate a young civil rights activist who had just returned from desegregation protests in the South.

    Baldwin feared that the celebrated firebrand would take the young protester apart. Baldwin later wrote

    that he had come “to throw out the lifeline whenever Malcolm should seem to be carrying the child

    beyond his depth.” To Baldwin’s amazement, Malcolm “understood that child and talked to him as

    though he was talking to a younger brother.” Baldwin was profoundly moved. “I will never forget

    Malcolm and that child facing each other, and Malcolm’s extraordinary gentleness. And that’s the truth

    about Malcolm: he was one of the gentlest people I have ever met.”

    A deep respect for, and a belief in, black humanity was at the heart of this revolutionary

    visionary’s faith. And as his social vision expanded to include people of divergent nationalities and

    racial identities, his gentle humanism and antiracism could have become a platform for a new kind of

    radical, global ethnic politics. Instead of the fiery symbol of ethnic violence and religious hatred, as al-

    Qaeda might project him, Malcolm X should become a representative for hope and human dignity. At

    least for the African-American people, he has already come to embody those loftier aspirations.

    - pp. 30-32: As the family continued to grow, Louise did her best to care for them all with a meager

    income. To learn the Garveyite principles of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, each older

    child was allotted a personal patch of garden. They continued to raise chickens and rabbits, but the

    daily pressures of poverty and their reputation as Garveyite oddballs took its toll. Earl was prone to

    physical violence with his wife and most of his children. Yet Malcolm, who idolized his father, would

    routinely escape punishment. Somehow the small boy sensed that his light color served as a kind of

    shield from Earl’s beatings.* As an adult, Malcolm recalled the violent incidents, admitting that his

    parents quarreled frequently; however, nearly all of his whippings as a boy came from his mother.

    [Malcolm X and Haley, Autobiography, p. 4.]

    * Bruce Perry, Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America, p. 6.

    As the Great Depression deepened, impoverished whites in the Midwest became attracted to a

    new vigilante formation, the Black Legion. Starting as the Klan Guard in late 1924 or early 1925 in

    Bellaire, Ohio, the formation employed a blend of anti-black and anti-Catholic rhetoric. Black robes

    instead of white were used; “burning crosses on midnight hillsides were in; noontime parades down

    Main Street were out.” The Black Legion successfully attracted many law enforcement personnel and

    some union members in public transport. By the early 1930s, its members routinely engaged in night

    riding and policing of town and village morals, with their victims subjected to any number of

    humiliations, including whippings, being tarred and feathered, or just being run out of town.

    Early in the evening of September 8, 1931, shortly after supper, Earl went into his bedroom to

    clean up before setting off for Lansing’s north side to collect “chicken money” from families that had

    purchased his poultry. Louise had a bad feeling about the trip and implored him not to go. Earl

    dismissed her fears and left. A few hours later, Louise and the children went to bed. Late in the night,

    she was awakened by a loud knock on the front door and sprang from her bed in terror. When she

    cautiously opened the door, she found a young Michigan state police officer, Lawrence G. Baril, who

    brought dreadful and long-feared news: her husband had been critically injured in an accident and was

    in the local hospital.

    Several hours earlier Baril had been summoned to the scene of a streetcar accident. This was the

    first serious accident that the young officer had investigated; his vivid impression, his widow,

    Florentina, later recalled, was that “the man had been cut in two . . . the accident was quite violent.”

    Police had immediately hypothesized that Earl had somehow slipped and fallen while boarding a

    moving streetcar at night. Perhaps he’d lost his footing and was pulled under the streetcar’s rear

    wheels, they speculated. The possibility that Earl could have been the victim of racist violence was

    never considered.

    Earl suffered terrible pain for several hours after being taken to hospital. His left arm had been

    crushed, his left leg nearly severed from his torso. By the time Louise reached him, he was dead. The

    Lansing coroner ruled Earl’s death accidental, and the Lansing newspaper account presented the story

    that way as well. Yet the memories of Lansing blacks as set down in oral histories tell a different story,

    one that suggested foul play and the involvement of the Black Legion.

    Wilfred recalled attending the funeral and viewing his father’s corpse. “While my mother was

    talking, I slipped into the back where they had the body on the table,” he remembered. “The streetcar

    had cut him just below the torso and it had cut his left leg completely off and had crushed the right leg,

    because the streetcar . . . had just run right over him. He ended up bleeding to death.” Malcolm’s most

    vivid memory of his father’s funeral was his mother’s hysteria, and later her difficulty in coping with

    what had happened. He believed that he and his siblings “adjusted” to the challenging reality of Early

    Little’s death better than Louise did. Nevertheless, the children were deeply disturbed by swirling

    rumors about their father’s violent death. Philbert, then eight years old, was told that “somebody had

    hit my father from behind with a car and knocked him under the streetcar. Then I learned later that

    somebody had shoved him under that car.”

    A forensic reconstruction of Earl Little’s death suggests that the story Philbert had heard may

    have been true. Before leaving home on the night of his death, Earl had told his wife that he was

    traveling to North Lansing. However, according to a local newspaper, his body was discovered at the

    intersection of Detroit Street and East Michigan Avenue, one block east of the town’s boundary line.

    Few blacks lived in the area. The odd location of the body suggests the possibility that Earl was struck

    by a car or perhaps bludgeoned in one location, and then moved under a streetcar at another site,

    making it appear to have been a terrible accident. Earl Little’s possible murder may have served the

    same purpose that lynchings did in the South—to terrorize local blacks and to suppress their acts of


    Louise harbored no doubts that her husband had been murdered, possibly by the Black Legion.

    Although she identified Earl’s body, she does not appear to have challenged the police report or

    otherwise tried to search out the truth. Malcolm remained throughout his life both haunted by his

    father’s tragic end and ambivalent about how it occurred. In 1963, while visiting Michigan State

    University, he described Earl’s death as accidental, yet the following year cast his father as a martyr

    for black liberation.

    - pp. 398-400: Probably the single most influential attack appeared in Muhammad Speaks under the

    name Louis X on December 4. “The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil,

    foolish talk,” Farrakhan declared. “Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death.” This code phrase was

    a call to arms within the sect.

    On the street, safety soon proved elusive for Malcolm’s people in the MMI. In late October,

    Kenneth Morton, who had quit the mosque at the time of Malcolm’s departure, was ambushed by

    members of the Fruit in front of his Bronx home. He was so severely beaten in the head that he

    subsequently died from his wounds. Captain Joseph denied that Mosque No. 7 and its officers had had

    any involvement in Morton’s death, but no one in the MMI needed proof to convince them to keep a

    low profile. Benjamin 2X narrowly escaped a beating or worse at the hands of Malcolm’s former

    driver Thomas 15X Johnson and a group of Nation thugs who chased him for several blocks. Almost

    as much a target as Malcolm himself, James 67X avoided sleeping in the same place for more than a

    night, rotating between four apartments, including one kept by his former roommate Anas Luqman.

    Despite this gathering storm, Malcolm did not curtail his public activities. In mid-December he

    took off several days to speak at Harvard Law School. His talk, “The African Revolution and Its

    Impact on the American Negro,” explained his ideas about Islam, drawing connections with Judaism

    and Christianity. He embraced the “brotherhood of all men,” he said, “but I don’t believe in wasting

    brotherhood on anyone who doesn’t want to practice it with me.” He drew again on a theme developed

    by Frantz Fanon, suggesting a link between the self-reinvention of black identity with the dismantling

    of racism. “Victims of racism are created in the image of the racists,” Malcolm argued. “When the

    victims struggle vigorously to protect themselves from violence of others, they are made to appear in

    the image of criminals, as the criminal image is projected onto the victim.” Liberation, he implied, was

    not simply political but cultural. His central point, however, was the necessity for blacks to transform

    their struggle from “civil rights” to “human rights,” redefining racism as “a problem for all humanity.”

    The OAAU favored getting “our problem before the United Nations,” but it also supported black

    voting and voter education.

    As Christmas drew near, Malcolm was invited to appear at the Williams Institutional Christian

    Methodist Episcopal Church in Harlem, where the principal speaker was the Mississippi freedom

    fighter Fannie Lou Hamer. The crowd at the Williams was somewhat small, about 175 people, but

    Malcolm gave a spirited and provocative presentation. His explorations in the philosophy of social

    movements in recent months had brought him face-to-face with an old debate within the Western left

    over how human beings come to perceive themselves as social actors, asking whether an external

    force, such as a tightly organized party, is necessary to bring oppressed people to full political

    consciousness, or if the oppressed by themselves have the ability to transform their own situations.

    Addressing this question, Malcolm came down strongly on the side of what has often been called

    spontaneity. “I, for one, believe that if you give people a thorough understanding of what it is that

    confronts them, and the basic causes that produce it, they’ll create their own program,” he remarked.

    “And when the people create a program, you get action.” In effect, Malcolm’s remarks implicitly

    rejected the Marxist-Leninist theory of a cadre-style revolutionary party and embraced C. L. R.

    James’s belief that the oppressed possessed the power to transform their own existence.

    If ordinary people possess the intelligence and potential for changing their conditions, around

    what economic principles should that take place? Here again Malcolm returned to socialism, but

    explained it in a new, geopolitical context. In his judgment, the basic geopolitical division of the

    world was not between the United States and the Soviet Union, but America versus communist China.

    “Among Asian countries, whether they are communist, socialist . . . almost every one . . . that has

    gotten independence has devised some kind of socialistic system, and this is no accident.” Although

    Malcolm had visited neither China nor Cuba, it was clear that the socialist societies he admired most

    drew from the models of Mao and Castro.

    That he should have looked to Asia, and specifically China, for examples made sense given the

    direction of his recent investigations into the history of global politics, and could also be placed in a

    much older context of black interest in China as a model for the struggle of oppressed peoples. As

    early as the turn of the century, W. E. B. Du Bois had made reference to the “color line” in The Souls

    of Black Folk, with the implication that “colored” people included Africans, Asians, Jews, and other

    minorities around the world engaged in a struggle against Western imperialism. Based on this

    argument, some blacks had entertained great sympathy for the Japanese empire in the 1930s. A

    generation later, many black leftists saw Mao Zedong as a triumphant leader of nonwhite people. The

    idea of black identification with Asia had even been reflected in the ideology of the Nation of Islam,

    which had viewed African Americans as genealogically “Asiatic,” a classification that Malcolm had

    abandoned before eventually coming to see the connection differently, in global-political terms. He

    was encouraged in this direction by his relationship with Shirley Graham Du Bois and her son, David,

    who enthusiastically picked up the torch their patriarch had long carried. Indeed, by the end of his life,

    W. E. B. Du Bois had come to be a revered figure in Asia, celebrated both by the Chinese and by

    Nehru in India. He had perceived revolutionary China as a triumph for all colored people.

    In the Williams church speech, Malcolm drew on the triumph of Asian socialism to return to the

    notion that capitalism as an economic system was inherently exploitative: “You can’t operate a

    capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic; you have to have someone else’s blood to suck to be a

    capitalist.” The tide of history for people of African descent was moving inextricably toward the East:

    “When we look at the African continent, when we look at the trouble that’s going on between East and

    West, we find that the nations in Africa are developing socialistic systems to solve their problems.”

    - pp. 472-475: Following Malcolm’s death, Betty Shabazz appeared to live a successful and rewarding

    life. In 1972 she enrolled in a doctoral program in education at the University of Massachusetts

    Amherst, receiving her Ph.D. three years later. Subsequently she served as an academic administrator

    at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, becoming a sort of celebrity among black middle-class and

    professional groups. But she could never escape Malcolm’s shadow, his terrible death, and the desire

    to punish those who were responsible. Her animus largely focused on Farrakhan, who she felt had

    betrayed Malcolm, and she believed he had directly participated in the conspiracy to murder him.

    Betty’s attacks on Farrakhan probably inspired her daughter Qubilah to attempt to hire a hit man to

    murder him in 1995. The would-be assassin, Michael Fitzpatrick, was an FBI informer, and Qubilah

    was quickly arrested and charged in federal court. In an astute move, Farrakhan rallied to Qubilah’s

    defense, claiming the young woman had been entrapped by the FBI. The government’s case fell apart

    at trial. Betty was forced to praise Farrakhan publicly for his “kindness in wanting to help my


    Tragically, barely a year after Qubilah’s legal ordeal, her disturbed twelve-year-old son, called

    “Little Malcolm” by the family, set fire one night to his grandmother’s apartment. Betty, sleeping in

    her bedroom, was horrifically burned. She struggled in the hospital for more than three weeks, with

    severe burns covering more than 80 percent of her body. Physicians took aggressive action, operating

    five times to remove layers of charred skin and replacing it with artificial skin. But the damage was too

    great and Betty Shabazz died on June 23, 1997. President William Jefferson Clinton noted her passing,

    applauding her for her commitments to “education and to uplifting women and children.” Like

    Malcolm X, noted District of Columbia representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, Shabazz “will be

    remembered not for her death, but for the principled life she lived and the tower of strength she

    became.” Her public memorial gathering, held at the prestigious Riverside Church in Manhattan,

    included testimonials by Republican governor George Pataki of New York and New York City’s

    Republican mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. The mayor, widely unpopular among many working-class and

    poor black New Yorkers, was roundly booed when he began to address the audience. It was significant

    that the eldest daughter, Attallah Shabazz, rushed to the podium in defense of Giuliani, praising the

    conservative mayor’s gesture of kindness toward her mother and criticizing the mostly black crowd for

    its rudeness. Her defense of Giuliani may have reflected Betty’s black bourgeois politics, but not those

    of her father.

    From the beginning of the criminal investigation following Malcolm’s murder, BOSS detective

    Gerry Fulcher had been troubled by what he considered major mistakes. The problems began at the

    crime scene. The first priority, Fulcher later recounted, should have been to “protect the whole area.

    You get rid of everybody who’s not going to be a witness.” Any evidence must be preserved. “You

    don’t want people finding things. . . .” In Fulcher’s judgment, the NYPD’s treatment of the murder

    scene was “totally contrary to what should be standard operating procedure. That thing should have

    been covered all night long.” In high-profile cases, it is not unusual to find “crime scenes stay[ing]

    locked up for days.” Fulcher expressed his misgivings to his police colleagues at the time of the

    assassination. Perhaps as a consequence, he found himself shut out of the investigation. Fulcher


    I should have been an indispensable part of finding out what went on and so on, because they should

    have been grilling me. . . . I was flat out told, you know, “Stay out, you’re not involved.” Made me

    think that they could have been getting their stories straight, so to speak, without the interference of

    this young guy who didn’t know anything. . . . All they wanted to know is “Did you hear anything on

    the phone?” To me that was just a show. They knew I wouldn’t hear anything on the phone, because

    there’d be nobody there [at the Hotel Theresa office]. They knew the schedule. . . . So I think they

    were playing their roles. I think that was all bullshit. And when I went up and tried to join them, you

    know—“No, no, this is where we get our stories straight. You’re out, kid.”

    Several months after the assassination, Fulcher was transferred from BOSS headquarters to one

    of the city’s most dangerous precincts, Fort Apache in the Bronx. He lasted there less than three years,

    before resigning from the force.

    In early 1978, radical attorney William Kunstler took up the cases of Thomas 15X Johnson and

    Norman 3X Butler, petitioning to the appellate division of the New York State Supreme court for a

    new trial. His principal new evidence was a signed affidavit by Talmadge Hayer that identified four

    other men, “torpedoes from New Jersey,” who had been responsible for the killing of Malcolm X.

    Kunstler informed the supreme court that “the FBI knew all along that there were four [other] men

    involved in the killing and that two of the men convicted were innocent.” The FBI refused to release its

    findings about Malcolm’s assassination to the court. Kunstler also noted rumors, never confirmed, that

    Reuben Francis had recently resurfaced “around his old haunts spending large sums of money he

    allegedly received from the FBI.” Another affidavit was also submitted by Benjamin Goodman (then

    Ben Karim), who affirmed that “at no time did I see the faces of Butler or Johnson whom I knew well,

    and would have been sure to notice.”

    On November 1, 1978, Justice Harold J. Rothwax of the state supreme court denied the motion

    to set aside the 1966 convictions of Butler and Johnson. The information in the affidavit might have

    exonerated those two men while identifying four others who, Hayer said, were guilty. However, the

    judge deemed the document insufficient to grant a new trial. Throughout 1978 and 1979 civil rights

    groups took up the Butler-Johnson case, first petitioning the U.S. House Select Committee on

    Assassinations, requesting an investigation into Malcolm X’s death. The petition charged, “The

    ‘official version’ has it that Malcolm X was the victim of a Muslim vendetta. Many unanswered

    questions and unexplained events that predate the assassination . . . do not support the ‘official version’

    at all.” Signatories of the petition included Ossie Davis, African Methodist Episcopal bishop H. H.

    Brookins, California state assemblywoman Maxine Waters, and Huey P. Newton of the Black Panther

    Party. Despite the campaign’s efforts, no congressional hearings were held.

    Norman Butler was paroled in 1985 and Thomas Johnson received parole in 1987. For decades

    both men agitated to clear their names. Johnson, who had changed his name to Khalil Islam, died on

    August 4, 2009. Butler changed his name to Muhammad Abdul Aziz, and in the early 1990s was

    employed as a supportive services counselor at a Harlem drug rehabilitation clinic. In 1998, Aziz

    briefly served as security chief for Harlem Mosque No. 7. Beginning in 1990, Hayer was incarcerated

    part-time at the Lincoln Correctional Facility in Manhattan, where he was confined for a total of

    twelve hours per week on weekends. After seventeen unsuccessful attempts, Hayer was finally granted

    full parole in April 2010. Hayer told the parole board, “I’ve had a lot of time . . . to think about

    [Malcolm X’s murder] . . . I understand a lot better the dynamics of movements . . . and conflicts that

    can come up, but I have deep regrets about my participation in that.” It was an oddly impersonal mea

    culpa, an apology without actually articulating the crime he had committed. Hayer’s parole provoked a

    negative response from the Malcolm X Commemoration Committee, which announced at a press

    conference that Hayer’s crimes were too serious to permit his release.

    Other than Talmadge Hayer, the alleged assassins of Malcolm X, according to Hayer’s affidavit,

    continued their lives in the Nation of Islam as before. The senior member of the crew, Newark mosque

    administrator Benjamin Thomas, was killed in 1986, at age forty-eight. Leon Davis lived on in

    Patterson, New Jersey, employed at an electronics factory there; he continued his affiliation with the

    Nation and the FOI for decades. Businessman Wilbur McKinley also continued to be associated with

    the Newark mosque.

    Alleged murderer Willie Bradley went into a life of crime. On April 11, 1968, the Livingston

    National Bank of Livingston, New Jersey, was robbed by three masked men brandishing three

    handguns and one sawed-off shotgun. They escaped with over $12,500. The following year Bradley

    and a second man, James Moore, were charged with the bank robbery and were brought to trial.

    Bradley, however, received privileged treatment, and he retained his own attorney separate from

    Moore. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed; meanwhile, after a first trial ending in a

    hung jury, Moore was convicted in a second trial.

    Bradley’s special treatment by the criminal justice system in 1969-70 raises the question of

    whether he was an FBI informant, either after the assassination of Malcolm X or very possibly even

    before. It would perhaps explain why Bradley took a different exit from the murder scene than the

    two other shooters, shielding him from the crowd’s retaliation. It suggests that Bradley and possibly

    other Newark mosque members may have actively collaborated on the shooting with local law

    enforcement and/or the FBI. The existing evidence raises the question of whether the murder of

    Malcolm X was not the initiative of the Nation of Islam alone. In The Death and Life of Malcolm X,

    Goldman does not identify Bradley by name but seems to be referring to him when he notes that one of

    the assassins “was tracked to a New Jersey state prison, where he was serving seven and a half to

    fifteen years for an unrelated felony.”

    - from Malcolm X Speaks; pp. 16-17 [Message to the grass roots (Detroit, November 10, 1963)]: We want to have just an off-the-cuff chat between you and me, us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand. We all agree tonight, all of the speakers have agreed, that America has a very serious problem. Not only does America have a very serious problem, but our people have a very serious problem. America’s problem is us. We’re her problem. The only reason she has a problem is she doesn’t want us here. And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red or yellow . . . you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you’re not wanted. Once you face this as a fact, then you can start plotting a course that will make you appear intelligent, instead of unintelligent.
    What you and I need to do is learn to forget our differences. When we come together, we don’t come together as Baptists or Methodists. You don’t catch hell because you’re a Baptist, and you don’t catch hell because you’re a Methodist. You don’t catch hell because you’re a Methodist or Baptist, you don’t catch hell because you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you don’t catch hell because you’re a Mason or an Elk, and you sure don’t catch hell because you’re an American; because if you were an American, you wouldn’t catch hell. You catch hell because you’re a black man. You catch hell, all of us catch hell, for the same reason.

    - pp. 30: When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn’t let him talk, because they couldn’t make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn’t let Baldwin get up there, because they know Baldwin is liable to say anything.

    - p. 42 [The ballot or the bullet (Cleveland, April 3, 1964)]: No, I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I’m not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver—no, not I. I’m speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.
    These 22 million victims are waking up. Their eyes are coming open. They’re beginning to see what they used to only look at. They’re becoming politically mature. They are realizing that there are new political trends from coast to coast. As they see these new political trends, it’s possible for them to see that every time there’s an election the races are so close that they have to have a recount. They had to recount in Massachusetts to see who was going to be governor, it was so close. It was the same way in Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and in many other parts of the country. And the same with Kennedy and Nixon when they ran for president. It was so close they had to count all over again. Well, what does this mean? It means that when white people are evenly divided, and black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who’s going to sit in the White House and who’s going to be in the dog house.

    - pp. 49-52: This is our investment. This is our contribution—our blood. Not only did we give of our free labor, we gave of our blood. Every time he had a call to arms, we were the first ones in uniform. We died on every battlefield the white man had. We have made a greater sacrifice than anybody who’s standing up in America today. We have made a greater contribution and have collected less. Civil rights, for those of us whose philosophy is black nationalism, means: “Give it to us now. Don’t wait for next year. Give it to us yesterday, and that’s not fast enough.”
    I might stop right here to point out one thing. Whenever you’re going after something that belongs to you, anyone who’s depriving you of the right to have it is a criminal. Understand that. Whenever you are going after something that is yours, you are within your legal rights to lay claim to it. And anyone who puts forth any effort to deprive you of that which is yours, is breaking the law, is a criminal. And this was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision. It outlawed segregation. Which means segregation is against the law. Which means a segregationist is breaking the law. A segregationist is a criminal. You can’t label him as anything other than that. And when you demonstrate against segregation, the law is on your side. The Supreme Court is on your side.
    Now, who is it that opposes you in carrying out the law? The police department itself. With police dogs and clubs. Whenever you demonstrate against segregation, whether it is segregated education, segregated housing, or anything else, the law is on your side, and anyone who stands in the way is not the law any longer. They are breaking the law, they are not representatives of the law. Any time you demonstrate against segregation and a man has the audacity to put a police dog on you, kill that dog, kill him, I’m telling you, kill that dog. I say it, if they put me in jail tomorrow, kill—that—dog. Then you’ll put a stop to it. Now, if these white people in here don’t want to see that kind of action, get down and tell the mayor to tell the police department to pull the dogs in. That’s all you have to do. If you don’t do it, someone else will.
    If you don’t take this kind of stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think “shame.” If you don’t take an uncompromising stand—I don’t mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I’m nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you’ve made me go insane, and I’m not responsible for what I do. And that’s the way every Negro should get. Any time you know you’re within the law, within your legal rights, within your moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in. But don’t die alone. Let your dying be reciprocal. This is what is meant by equality. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
    When we begin to get in this area, we need new friends, we need new allies. We need to expand the civil-rights struggle to a higher level—to the level of human rights. Whenever you are in a civil-rights struggle, whether you know it or not, you are confining yourself to the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam. No one from the outside world can speak out in your behalf as long as your struggle is a civil-rights struggle. Civil rights comes within the domestic affairs of this country. All of our African brothers and our Asian brothers and our Latin-American brothers cannot open their mouths and interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States. And as long as it’s civil rights, this comes under the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.
    But the United Nations has what’s known as the charter of human rights, it has a committee that deals in human rights. You may wonder why all of the atrocities that have been committed in Africa and in Hungary and in Asia and in Latin America are brought before the UN, and the Negro problem is never brought before the UN. This old, tricky, blue-eyed liberal who is supposed to be your and my friend, supposed to be in our corner, supposed to be subsidizing our struggle, and supposed to be acting in the capacity of an adviser, never tells you anything about human rights. They keep you wrapped up in civil rights. And you spend so much time barking up the civil-rights tree, you don’t even know there’s a human-rights tree on the same floor.
    When you expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights, you can then take the case of the black man in this country before the nations in the UN. You can take it before the General Assembly. You can take Uncle Sam before a world court. But the only level you can do it on is the level of human rights. Civil rights keeps you under his restrictions, under his jurisdiction. Civil rights keeps you in his pocket. Civil rights means you’re asking Uncle Sam to treat you right. Human rights are something you were born with. Human rights are your God-given rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth. And any time anyone violates your human rights, you can take them to the world court. Uncle Sam’s hands are dripping with blood, dripping with the blood of the black man in this country. He’s the earth’s number-one hypocrite. He has the audacity—yes, he has—imagine him posing as the leader of the free world. The free world!—and you over here singing “We Shall Overcome.” Expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights, take it into the United Nations, where our African brothers can throw their weight on our side, where our Asian brothers can throw their weight on our side, where our Latin-American brothers can throw their weight on our side, and where 800 million Chinamen are sitting there waiting to throw their weight on our side.
    Let the world know how bloody his hands are. Let the world know the hypocrisy that’s practiced over here. Let it be the ballot or the bullet. Let him know that it must be the ballot or the bullet.
    When you take your case to Washington, D.C., you’re taking it to the criminal who’s responsible; it’s like running from the wolf to the fox. They’re all in cahoots together. They all work political chicanery and make you look like a chump before the eyes of the world. Here you are walking around in America, getting ready to be drafted and sent abroad, like a tin soldier, and when you get over there, people ask you what are you fighting for, and you have to stick your tongue in your cheek. No, take Uncle Sam to court, take him before the world.

    - from Growing Up X by Ilyasah Shabazz (with Kim McLarin); p, vii:

    If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I would have freed thousands more.


    - p. 37: I’m not sure how much I really remember of my father. My mother and Attallah shared so

    many stories with us that I honestly don’t know if I remember him or if the memories I have exist

    only because they kept him so alive.

    They both spoke about him as if he had just gone out for a newspaper. Mommy talked about him

    when we were at dinner. She always called him “my husband.” My husband this, and my

    husband that
    . Or, Your father. Or, Daddy. She told me how he would call me with

    authority, calling “Ilyasah!” and how I would jump! He was the only person I reacted to with such

    complete obedience. If my mother called me I would continue doing whatever it was I was doing, but

    with my father it was, “Yes sir.”

    I have a memory in which I used to come downstairs in our house and open the venetian blinds

    to look for my father. When I heard him coming, I’d go running for the door, and he’d open it and

    swing me up, up, up, high into the air for a big hug, then catch me under his arm like a big sack of

    potatoes and together we’d take the oatmeal cookies Mommy used to make and go watch the evening


    I’m a cookie fanatic to this day, and I sleep with the news on all night long.

    - from Dark Days, Bright Nights by Peniel E. Joseph; p. 86: As he had done during the Kennedy

    administration, Malcolm also publicly indicted Lyndon Johnson. He questioned why the president

    claimed segregationist senator Richard Russell as a friend, arguing that Russell’s opposition to the

    impending civil rights bill cast suspicion over LBJ by association. “I am inclined,” said Malcolm, “to

    question Johnson’s integrity.” In saying this, he cast himself, once again, as a militant statesman

    courageous enough to question the president’s commitment to civil rights and racial justice. In an

    exclusive interview with the New York Amsterdam News, Malcolm chastised civil rights groups for

    their “narrow approach to the whole race question.” He then promised to build a new organization

    whose goals, strategies, and tactics would move beyond the political stalemate that bogged down

    black nationalists and integrationists.

    Last edited by HERO; 05-20-2013 at 10:16 PM.
    “Must get that Capel street library book renewed or they’ll write to
    Kearney, my garantor. Reincarnation: that’s the word.

    — Some people believe, he said, that we go on living in another body
    after death, that we lived before. They call it reincarnation. That we all lived
    before on the earth thousands of years ago or some other planet. They say we
    have forgotten it. Some say they remember their past lives.

    The sluggish cream wound curdling spirals through her tea. Better remind
    her of the word: metempsychosis. An example would be better.”

    —from Ulysses by James Joyce

  2. #2
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    37 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    I'm sure there is some common agreed upon typing for him. At first glance I have no problem with calling him your typical beta revolutionary.
    Easy Day

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    144 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    Beta rational. Probably EIE E6 sx/so , as he's been typed around, I can see that.

  4. #4
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    EII land
    EII INFj
    531 Post(s)
    6 Thread(s)



    SLI confirm and final

    you should get a hold of the FBI files on him and Martin Luther King. Compared to the King who is SEE type, Malcolm was an angel, devoted loving man; but, King slept with all kinds of women...what a sensualist

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    South Korea
    2 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Pretty sure he is Beta quadra.
    EIE-Ni E6?
    But many say he is Beta ST.

  6. #6
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    4 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Malcolm X - ISFJ - Dreiser

  7. #7
    Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    IEI-3Ni 4w5 sx/sp
    2 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default LSI

    I read his autobiography and he was LSI for sure. He is introverted, serious, no-nonsense and politically oriented. Very structured and principled. I don't see EIE for him as he seemed quite unemotional. More of an intellectual figure than a motivational speaker.

    He is known for his "by any means necessary" philosophy which shows strong valued Se. He definitely advocated for use of of force but only in a defensive way as LSIs do.

    Some quote examples:
    "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it."
    "I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence."
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

    And bonus Ni valuing:
    "Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today."

  8. #8
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Midwest, USA
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    447 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Malcolm X - ISFJ - Dreiser

    I’ve seen this exact expression on my LII sister’s face.
    @Seraph argues for LSI, so maybe what I’m seeing is 4D-Ti, 1D-Fe.

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    357 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    malcolm x was ridiculously good looking

    i even like that tie

  10. #10
    Jacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    North Carolina
    LIE-Ni 1w9 sx/so
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Malcolm X - ISFJ - Dreiser

    I've never seen a pic of Malcolm in color before. I knew he was supposed to have red hair, but I had never seen it before. Color really brings out his mixed-race appearance, too. He was one of the few 60s political activists that I actually like, given that he was neither a hypocrite nor a charlatan.
    He seems to value Fe. I'm not entirely sure what type he is, he's more fiery than LSIs typically are, but he doesn't come off like an EIE.
    For now I'll hedge my bets on LSI.

  11. #11
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    357 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    I think ESI is right, I think LSI would have been more onboard with King (EIE) as wanting to work within the system.. I think dreiser can sustain this kind of open conflict better in the social realm. I think Fe suggestive wants to kind of bury it, whereas dresier stands on it, treats it like a working environment. I do think this is a good example of precisely the difference between ESI and LSI. I think his comments toward Kennedy should be psychologically effective as being directed squarely at his dual. I imagine kennedy found it more convincing than certain communist arguments rooted in thinking style comprehension of the issue and so forth. I see X's religious approach as more ground up than Kings.. I do think there's a kind of mirage effect between him and King, but its not duality. I also think his lack of broad based appeal is indicative of being more ESI than EIE as well, he's really not trying to unite all people per se, he's trying to resolve the issues in his community and in a very American (LIE) environment and way. I think when King was accused of being anti american in some sense this is what was felt, and while the same people may have hated X for ostensibly similarly stated reasons, he was more American in the socionics sense at his core. The difference is in how detractors of both saw American as racist, so they were in a sense both enemies of "America", but if you look at America as LIE you see X not as an enemy but as a critical dual, whereas King really was in some sense communist and a threat on a different level, although they both had meritorious messages in regard to racism itself, namely that it is bad. Malcom X comes across as more sympathetically human in an individualistic sense to me

  12. #12
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Inside yo moms vagina
    139 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    he seems LIE
    8w7 7w8 3w2

  13. #13
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    127 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Malcolm X was some kind of a black nationalist, but he still had some interesting arguments. Kind of ironic as an all-encompassing ideology of Socionics would be against everything he was speaking for. He thought that having some kind of a segregated black nation, separate from America, and ideally back in his homeland Africa, would be ideal. He was a race purist/nationalist.

    I think the difference between him and Martin Luther King were about them being on the different sides of the political spectrum. MLK were more on the liberal side, while Malcolm X was more on the conservative side. Ultimately, I think MLK proved himself to be more right, although Malcolm X still had many interesting arguments. MLK wanted to constructively solve the problem of racism and peaceful co-existence and co-prosperity in a society, while Malcolm X didn't even want to live in America and have nothing to do with it. He thought of himself as a diaspora, dreaming of one day returning to his ideal homeland. I think that's an attractive image to have for those who were unjustly and forcefully taken against their will from their homelands, that they would return one day and everything will be all right again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    The difference is in how detractors of both saw American as racist, so they were in a sense both enemies of "America", but if you look at America as LIE you see X not as an enemy but as a critical dual, whereas King really was in some sense communist and a threat on a different level, although they both had meritorious messages in regard to racism itself, namely that it is bad. Malcom X comes across as more sympathetically human in an individualistic sense to me
    Just lol at every level. It's like you can keep making these kinds of bullshit as much as you want. It just goes to show how hopelessly childish and inadequate any Socioniocs "analysis" really are.

    Premise: Assume that Socionics is true at every level. Then try to fit every scenarios into this premise.

    Result: Clusterfuck.
    Inductivism (observation-based process) doesn't work, and cannot work. Things repeated in the past do not necessarily repeat indefinitely in the future.

  14. #14
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    357 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    I can see you want to open up some kind of debate based on some of the premises you've laid out here; maybe niffer will take you up on that, but that trick is old hat from my point of view... all I want to do is throw out my point of view and if people want to consider it or ask clarifying questions good for them; your way of doing things I find kind of juvenile because it doesn't seem to really respect the material or the opinions of people, it just seeks to come in and generate conflict and controversy by emotionally riling people up with offensive and hyperbolic claims that aren't really even in good faith to begin with. its sort of like just coming in and making a mess so SLE has something to play with. anyway I find since all these claims really are about you and not malcolm X we should just focus on that if we want to resolve the source of the controversy, so this thread is now about you

  15. #15
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    127 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I can see you want to open up some kind of debate based on some of the premises you've laid out here; maybe niffer will take you up on that, but that trick is old hat from my point of view
    No, I'm just pointing out how ridiculously shortsighted and shallow your analysis is. This cannot be helped, as Socionics is a shallow system that can't generate anything new.
    Inductivism (observation-based process) doesn't work, and cannot work. Things repeated in the past do not necessarily repeat indefinitely in the future.

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    357 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    lol it can't be helped, but you're doing it anyway

  17. #17
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    127 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Well the fact is this, Malcolm X was much more of an interesting person than any type that you can apply to him, whether it be ESI or LSI or something. As Socionics is a system of stereotypes, by definition it will limit the totality of his personality, as it will limit the discussion to what can be discussed within the framework of Socionics, which is admittedly pretty shallow and narrow.

    It just takes away the person and the humanity out of him if you just say dumb stuff like "He was really acting as if everybody else was his dual", which quite frankly doesn't even make sense or even enlighten anything or generate anything new.

    I would say that he was just a struggling person, as any oppressed blacks were at that time, and he was trying to survive with the best knowledge that he knew how: through black nationalism and by fighting back. But ultimately, I think he responded to his fears first, and this made him more defensive and hostile, while MLK could somehow transcend all this and he could work more constructively by appealing to the more humane side of society. Through social justice, through social movements that include all races and minorities, through democratic ideals. He wasn't just working for his "own people", he could extend his empathy to other races, the entire society, the entire humanity. MLK just had a much bigger goal in his mind.

    So don't give me that BS, "he was really doing it for his dual, even unconsciously". No he wasn't, and that's just disrespectful to everything he was working for, even if he might have been ultimately misguided. Don't just reduce people to these ridiculously simple stereotypes, just because it's easier for you to digest and deal with.

    Inductivism (observation-based process) doesn't work, and cannot work. Things repeated in the past do not necessarily repeat indefinitely in the future.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts