Malcolm X & Dr. King

[fmlnleft]

I have been learning more about Malcolm X lately, and I am wondering why it is that the U.S. recognizes and study Dr. King more than Malcolm?? Malcolm inspired separation instead of forced integration with the white society.King inspired integration like Gandhi, but the difference is that the Indians out numbered the whites a million to one or so.. To me Malcolm's philosophy makes more sense.. That is my opinion but I am sure others feel the same way. thats why i ask this question..
Thanks...

[Pirate Utopian]

Because Malcolm X is impossible to whitewash.

Malcolm X was angry, anti-capitalist, revolutionary and militant.

MLK had made some anti-capitalist statements but they were few, with Malcolm X every thing was a denouncement of the American system.

[Prairie Fire]

Well, even the last years of MLK's life before his assasination were censored. Around the time when he took a decidedly anti-Vietnam war, pro-labour position and started organizing things like the poor peoples campaign in 1968. For these reasons, he was shot and killed in 1968.

But, yeah, one could ask why MLK is elevated, Malcolm X is barely mentioned or converted into harmless iconography, and Huey P Newton, Fred Hampton, George Jackson, etc, etc are not even given a passing mention (even though it almost self evident that the BPP did way more in real terms and political terms for Black people than MLK did).

Comrades have allready pointed out the reasoning for this. How could it be otherwise?

[Dimentio]

Because the image of MLK is more important than MLK himself, at least for the ruling establishment. That could allow them to justify themselves by associating their legitimacy with King while at the same time spitting on his ideals.

[Dean]

Malcolm X, WEB Dubois and Mercus Garvey each recognized and focused on the material conditions responsible for the creation and perpetuation of black oppression. Contrarily, MLK and Booker T Washington were largely idealist and disinterested in the material world or its systems.

[Dimentio]

Malcolm X, WEB Dubois and Mercus Garvey each recognized and focused on the material conditions responsible for the creation and perpetuation of black oppression. Contrarily, MLK and Booker T Washington were largely idealist and disinterested in the material world or its systems.

I don't think its entirely true. MLK was about to organise a march to support those who were poor in 1968, before his assassination. I have read up on the MLK assassination, and believe that he probably was taken out because his ideas had begun to become a threat against the powers that be.

I agree that the image of King is highly idealist though. But so is the image of the Dalai Lama (who on the other hand is a reactionary who has befriended several nazis).

[Crusade]

Because Malcolm X made too much sense. Malcolm X was not only unwavering in his arguments against racial inequality and capitalism, but his solutions to dealing with these problems upset people. He wanted to deal with oppression the same way oppressors deal with the opposition. I love Dr King and I believe he was a great man, but the civil rights movement merely dealt with the issue of segregation(sort of). If a predominately black school is underfunded and a white school is properly funded, the solution is allowing black students to go to the properly funded white school? :confused: Blacks can drink from the same fountains as whites? Oh joy. Malcolm X addressed the the root of the problem and all forces supporting it and suggested we actually DESTROY the system. That's why we hear about MLK more. :thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

Because Malcolm X made too much sense. Malcolm X was not only unwavering in his arguments against racial inequality and capitalism, but his solutions to dealing with these problems upset people. He wanted to deal with oppression the same way oppressors deal with the opposition. I love Dr King and I believe he was a great man, but the civil rights movement merely dealt with the issue of segregation(sort of). If a predominately black school is underfunded and a white school is properly funded, the solution is allowing black students to go to the properly funded white school? :confused: Blacks can drink from the same fountains as whites? Oh joy. Malcolm X addressed the the root of the problem and all forces supporting it and suggested we actually DESTROY the system. That's why we hear about MLK more. :thumbup1:

I don't think ethnic separatism is making too much a sense. Especially not reemigration to Africa. The experience of what happened with Liberia is frightening. African-Americans have lived so long in America that they are a part of American - not African - culture.

[Pirate Utopian]

Malcolm X in his final days also saw that the struggle for freedom and equality was a worldwide struggle and he wished to unite people with that struggle.

That's why he said he wanted civil rights activists to refer to it as human rights instead of civil rights cause civil rights made it sound like it was only a domestic issue.

[Dimentio]

Malcolm X in his final days also saw that the struggle for freedom and equality was a worldwide struggle and he wished to unite people with that struggle.

That's why he said he wanted civil rights activists to refer to it as human rights instead of civil rights cause civil rights made it sound like it was only a domestic issue.

Yes, that was after he turned his back against Nation of Islam.

[Crusade]

I don't think ethnic separatism is making too much a sense. Especially not reemigration to Africa. The experience of what happened with Liberia is frightening. African-Americans have lived so long in America that they are a part of American - not African - culture.

I was referring more to Malcolm after the nation of Islam. Also, while I agree Black Americans are part of American culture rather than African, in context, I could understand how a Black American during Malcolm's time could feel more connected by racialism than nationalism(I disagree with both). Especially living in a country that doesn't respect you as a citizen, yet expects you to fight and die in your wars and obey their laws. I do understand, however, that this doesn't excuse ethnic separatism and I don't support it under any circumstances.

[RadioRaheem84]

Malcolm totally did a 180 on his views on race after he was betrayed by the Nation of Islam and he took his trip to Mecca. He always made more sense than MLK though. MLK was turned into a symbol of pacification for the Civil Rights Movement or any struggle that wished for social change.

Malcolm X not only pissed off right wingers but pissed off the liberal establishment, as he not only denounced the hypocrisy of the system but the entire system itself and said it was incompatible with true liberation. MLK was a reformist and thus is touted by liberals as the better of the two.

The real measure of how well you're doing in leading a real liberation struggle is not how quickly you piss off the right wingers but how slowly you piss of the liberal establishment.

[Dimentio]

Malcolm totally did a 180 on his views on race after he was betrayed by the Nation of Islam and he took his trip to Mecca. He always made more sense than MLK though. MLK was turned into a symbol of pacification for the Civil Rights Movement or any struggle that wished for social change.

Malcolm X not only pissed off right wingers but pissed off the liberal establishment, as he not only denounced the hypocrisy of the system but the entire system itself and said it was incompatible with true liberation. MLK was a reformist and thus is touted by liberals as the better of the two.

The real measure of how well you're doing in leading a real liberation struggle is not how quickly you piss off the right wingers but how slowly you piss of the liberal establishment.

The only reason why MLK was turned into such a symbol was that he was "holy cowed" by the media, disarming the content of his ideology by just attaching general and harmless human rights values to him, making him a part of the state ideology. Other progressives as well as reactionaries (Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama) has been turned into similar symbols.

[RadioRaheem84]

The only reason why MLK was turned into such a symbol was that he was "holy cowed" by the media, disarming the content of his ideology by just attaching general and harmless human rights values to him, making him a part of the state ideology. Other progressives as well as reactionaries (Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama) has been turned into similar symbols.

Agreed. I am not diminishing he work of MLK as there was more to him than just what the media portrays.

[Pirate Utopian]

Yes, that was after he turned his back against Nation of Islam.
He crystalised it after leaving them but it started before going to Mecca, before even leaving the NOI.

He travelled through Africa as an embassador for the NOI and he talked to many African revolutionaries.

Like it was brought up earlier even during his NOI days Malcolm X made alot of sense.

The NOI might be a reactionary group, but without them there would have never been a revolutionary Malcolm X, he would have remained Detroit Red, pimp and drugdealer.
They were the first to show him the flaws of the system.
Through their fucked up lens sure, but it made him the man he was.

[Red Commissar]

As Pirate pointed out earlier, I believe the main reason comes down to the fact that MLK is much more easier to whitewash and present in a benign light.

Nearly everything Malcom X did in one way or another was against the establishment and status quo, whereas MLK believed the system could have been reformed. Similar to the conflicts between WEB Dubois and Booker T. Washington at the turn of the century.

Due to the nature of his activities, had to have worked with communists, socialists, and trade unionists who were prominent in their circles, like A. Philip Randolph. He was certainly familiar with their activities.

However, It is no secret that the government and conservatives attempted to redbait MLK numerous times into appearing communist. COINTELPRO amassed a large file on him as well.

The Poor People's Campaign he started, and is rarely mentioned in most school teachings because of MLK's main arguments- why was the government so loose and generous with military spending, yet refused to do the same with social spending? After all, this is a situation which still continues into our modern times.

When he died, he was in Memphis. Why?- to support a strike of black public sanitation workers. With the nature of the African-American community, being denied the potential for higher-grade work and being discriminated against at the bottom, labor was much more of a pressing issue.


Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.From that quote I would probably place Dr. King as what we would associate with a "social democrat" nowadays.

Malcom X was certainly much more revolutionary than MLK, and MLK more of a reformist. He however his own share of ideas that was critical of the system, he was simply too idealistic and confident it could be changed, which I would attribute to his religious background. The American system has it painted so that MLK seems like a man who was able to work through the system to achieve change (with religious convictions), rather than outside it, though I would argue that towards the end of his life MLK began to doubt this approach.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, even the last years of MLK's life before his assasination were censored. Around the time when he took a decidedly anti-Vietnam war, pro-labour position and started organizing things like the poor peoples campaign in 1968. For these reasons, he was shot and killed in 1968.

But, yeah, one could ask why MLK is elevated, Malcolm X is barely mentioned or converted into harmless iconography, and Huey P Newton, Fred Hampton, George Jackson, etc, etc are not even given a passing mention (even though it almost self evident that the BPP did way more in real terms and political terms for Black people than MLK did).

Comrades have allready pointed out the reasoning for this. How could it be otherwise?

Just to add to the question of why MLK and not X: the way the establishment eventually treated these two figures reflects how the ruling class delt with the black power movement as a whole. For the radical and more class-conscious sections of the movement, there was heavy repression - the Black Panthers are the prime example of this. For the class-collaborationist portions of the movement (where black power meant black-owned business and community control meant black business and black politicians and maybe black cops) the ruling class offered co-option. While the Democrats backed "friendly" black political leaders by supporting their election campaigns, the radicals were smashed. Unfortunately this process worked and the impression of progress that elected black leaders, some reforms, and black-owned business began to be seen as the "realistic" road to rights while radicalism meant repression and violence.

So in retrospect the way MLK and Malcom are treated in mainstream history reflects this approach. While MLK was actually more radical in his later years and in a process of connecting class and race in an overt way (he was helping a strike of black workers when he was assassinated), in mainstream history in the US, his activism and political development ends with the "I have a Dream" Speech: the implication is clear - sit ins and boycotts might be necessary at first, but then your next step is to appeal to the liberal establishment and get recognized by the Democratic Party.

Malcolm on the other hand is (even today) treated in the mainstream as a "victim of the violence he advocated". Even though X's political development was dynamic and inspiring, X is still seen the same way he was presented by 60 minutes in the early 60s: "The hate that hate made": it's like the US establishment is trying to assassinate his legacy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I like things about both men. I prefer Malcolm X's ideology. However, I think nonviolent resistance can be effective. There was a particular idea about what it was to be black. There still is. By preaching nonviolence, there were gains made. I think the fact that the two of them "both" worked distinct angles actually helped more than either could have by sharing the same ideology. Maybe not, though.

The only problem I have is that people interpret MLK as an argument for why violence is unnecessary. I had this view in my youth. Communism sounds great, I thought. I didn't like the idea that violence was needed. I changed my mind on that pretty quickly when I discovered the arguments which, by the way, I had to get through individual research while MLK was taught in the state apparatus.

If nonviolent resistance works, my response is now this. How come a child who rebels against his parents rarely succeeds? It's because he has no power. Nonviolent resistance needs to maintain the capacity for violent behavior. It needs to be a statement of a specific kind, not a self-deprecation. Otherwise, people die. I suspect that the Dalai's philosophies of nonviolence likely have gotten many people killed when they could've otherwise defended themselves. The same might be said of many nonviolent leaders.

However, I'd hardly accuse MLK of manipulating people. Those who died fighting under the banner of nonviolence likely believed in it of their own will.

[Tifosi]

I seen this this (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15647) last night, I think it was an alright read.

[Dimentio]

I like things about both men. I prefer Malcolm X's ideology. However, I think nonviolent resistance can be effective. There was a particular idea about what it was to be black. There still is. By preaching nonviolence, there were gains made. I think the fact that the two of them "both" worked distinct angles actually helped more than either could have by sharing the same ideology. Maybe not, though.

The only problem I have is that people interpret MLK as an argument for why violence is unnecessary. I had this view in my youth. Communism sounds great, I thought. I didn't like the idea that violence was needed. I changed my mind on that pretty quickly when I discovered the arguments which, by the way, I had to get through individual research while MLK was taught in the state apparatus.

If nonviolent resistance works, my response is now this. How come a child who rebels against his parents rarely succeeds? It's because he has no power. Nonviolent resistance needs to maintain the capacity for violent behavior. It needs to be a statement of a specific kind, not a self-deprecation. Otherwise, people die. I suspect that the Dalai's philosophies of nonviolence likely have gotten many people killed when they could've otherwise defended themselves. The same might be said of many nonviolent leaders.

However, I'd hardly accuse MLK of manipulating people. Those who died fighting under the banner of nonviolence likely believed in it of their own will.

Dalai Lama began with violent struggle, before realising how unfeasible it was. Most often, non-violent struggles seem to be caused by weakness.

[bayano]

Yall are sorta redwashing history now. Malcolm X is one of my heroes and incredibly important. But consider as objectively as you can how each directly organized movments. King was more central to a larger and more powerful movement in his lifetime. Many of the strongest movements Malcolm influenced came after his death or never directly associated with him. He was certainly an organized, but most of it went to building NOI which washes him out of history for obvious reasons, or groups that fizzled after his death. King deserves recognition for his central role, not just bcuz of some whitewashing and taming of history.

Beyond that, there is plenty of whitewashing of Malcolm X, most consistently exhibited in the Black community in those tendencies that offer entrepreneurialism as the best option for the community (a very booker t option) and spit his quotes out of context, or turn Malcolm X into an icon amongst those who do nothing or have no similar agenda. im all for heroes and martyrs, but we could use fewer icons.

[blake 3:17]

I was going to way in that I was 51% Malcolm and 49% MLK, but on second thoughts I respect them as equals. They were both thrown into the struggle for Black liberation, and came to understand freedom for African Americans as part of the struggle for freedom both in the US and internationally. It's worth paying attention to their differences -- I've been struck by Malcolm's criticisms of the Southern inclusion of children on the front lines.

A thing (a thing?) I admire in any leader of a liberation struggle is their onsistent movement to the left. It's relatively easy to start on the radical or revolutionary left and drift towards moderation or centrism. It's much harder to move to the left while maintaining one's base. Both did it, with huge risks involved, both from the Right, the mainstream and their own bases.

It's awful that both were killed in the process.

[Red Commissar]

Another relevant quote from MLK speaking on the event of WEB Du Bois's 100 anniversery (1968).


"We cannot talk of Dr. Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact that he was a Communist in his later years. It is worth noting that Abraham Lincoln warmly welcomed the support of Karl Marx during the Civil War and corresponded with him freely. In contemporary life, the English speaking world has no difficulty with the fact that Sean O'Casey was a literary giant of the twentieth century and a Communist, or that Pablo Neruda is generally considered the greatest living poet though he also served in the Chilean Senate as a Communist. It is time to cease muting the fact that Dr. Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a Communist. Our irrational obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking. …Dr. Du Bois' greatest virtue was his committed empathy with all the oppressed and his divine dissatisfaction with all forms of injustice."

We can see this that MLK didn't fall into the anti-communist rabidness the red scare possessed, I think good on his end considering how many religious officials joined that band wagon.

[chimx]

Comrades have allready pointed out the reasoning for this. How could it be otherwise?

Don't you mean "thys"?