Man...Malcolm X spit that real.
Options
Comments
-
you know what else i am doing? QUOTING LOUIS FARRAKHAN.waterproof wrote: »How in the hell did Louie take Malcolm Home. Malcolm Home, Car ect....was the property of NOI, again you giving Louie to much credit-
Malcolm went around amongst the NOI talking about Muhammad's infidelities because, let's be honest, it was a big story and a very negative revelation about him; Farrakhan essentially went to Muhammad/Ali/etc and said "oh, Malcolm's talking all this ? out of self-promotion." seems pretty clear.waterproof wrote: »How in the hell did Louie stab Malcolm in the back-
i don't know why you keep telling me that Malcolm brought Farrakhan into the NOI. what about that reflects in any way on what i'm saying about these guys?waterproof wrote: »-did Malcolm bring Louie to the Nation, Yes he did....Just like Malcolm was brought into the Nation by somebody else. Louie and just like every other person that Malcolm X brought in the nation decided to stay with the Nation, Malcolm X asked nobody to follow him and if they decided to stay with the Nation than just like Malcolm accepted then so should you
well, for one thing, it ties into the part i mentioned originally about "i don't know what a guy who's prominently involved in removing and replacing Malcolm X has do to with Malcolm X's relationship with the NOI." for another, it responds to you saying "Louie was low on the totem pole and had no pull in the nation." was he low on the totem pole or not?waterproof wrote: »So what if Elijah put Louie in Malcolm spot...
however, you're dismissing it out of hand because you are making a flurry of excuses for the NOI.waterproof wrote: »oh yeah it's funny as hell that you missed me mention that there was members in the NOI that wasnt planted wanted to hurt malcolm and do harm to him, i already said that guy
nope. i will go so far as to note the reason why you're not naming anyone is because you cannot support this claim in any way.waterproof wrote: »-but back to the lecture at hand, those who killed Malcolm was informants
what i'm OFFENDED by is you going out of your way to make every possible excuse for the behavior of the NOI and its leadership. as far as him "going home," i have actually possibly read about the topic and the truth of the matter seems much more like "wanted to repair the relationship enough to end the hostility" rather than "going home." Malcolm spent years chafing under and/or clashing with the NOI's stances on politics; the fact is that he wanted to grow BEYOND what he was allowed to do and say in the NOI.waterproof wrote: »It seem like you are offended that Malcolm X wanted to go home, im just stating facts that is well known...
well, a phrase that's redundant as hell remains a phrase that's redundant as hellwaterproof wrote: »oh yeah miss me with that ? about me finding a new phrase, i like that phrase...
this is nothing new, Malcolm X wanted to work with SNCC and other black movements in America but NOI was isolated from other black movements in America and when he was suspended he was willing to stop going out of NOI business if he could return, here you go from Malcolm X mouth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Edz6IG0hrM
As the rest i already said my Peace on that and responded if you looked over it, well so be it, If you believe that the NOI killed Malcolm so be it....
Just as you read, I read studied, searched also, Like i said Both Men Pride got in the way and have outsiders and plants to seperate the two, Malcolm X mission was going to happen one way or another and neither FBI, NOI or any person was going to stop it, but it happen in another way that ended with death.
We can agree to disagree, it's like water off a ducks back.... but i did enjoyed this debate with you and respect your point of views, and understand where you are coming from because you do have some valid points
-
@Amotekun and others here's a interview this a real great about Malcolm X, NOI, Alex Haley trifilin ass and did NOI killed Malcolm X, talks about how there were four groups in the NOI, One was informants, A group that wanted to silence Malcolm permanently, some went out their way to harm and take malcolm x and the other was against harming Malcolm and how it points to the goverment that killed Malcolm.......ENJOY THE READ.....
The missing Malcolm
An Interview with Manning Marable
MANNING MARABLE is a professor of Public Affairs, Political Science, History and African-American Studies at Columbia University in New York City, and the founder of the Center for Contemporary Black History (CCBH) at Columbia University. He is the author of numerous works, including How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (Boston: South End Press, 1983), Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945–1990 (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1991), and Living Black History: How Reimagining the African-American Past Can Remake America’s Racial Future (New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2006). His current works in progress include a new comprehensive biography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York: Viking, 2009).
Simon J. Black, a freelance writer and PhD student at York University in Toronto, interviewed Dr. Marable in New York City. You can find his writing at www.simonjblack.com.
DR. MARABLE, when we speak of W.E.B. Du Bois, A. Phillip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and Martin Luther King, we are not only speaking of great intellectuals and civil rights leaders, but of democratic socialists. Malcolm also moved to the left in his later life. Much of this has been suppressed or written out of mainstream civil rights history. What effect has that had on how African-Americans relate to the left and how the left, Black and white, relates to the African-American community?
AFRICAN-AMERICANS who identify themselves with socialism or left projects have been drawn to that body of politics based on their realization that racialized injustice is not simply a dynamic of color, but, rather, has something very directly to do with accumulated disadvantage driven by market economics and by the hegemony of capital over labor. Black people in the United States and the Americas who came here were brought here involuntarily due to the demand for labor and the unquenchable thirsts on the part of those who own capital and invested in means of production to find the cheapest way to develop a labor pool to exploit and to extract surplus value that is accrued to them through excess profits.
The engine that drove the trans-Atlantic slave trade was capital, as Eric Williams in Capitalism and Slavery pointed out fifty and sixty years ago. Malcolm, on Jan. 15, 1965, a month before he dies, does an interview in Canada, I believe in Toronto, where he says, “All my life, I believed that the fundamental struggle was Black versus white. Now I realize that it is the haves against the have-nots.” Malcolm came to the realization, King came to the realization, that the nature of the struggle was between those who have and those who are dispossessed. [Frantz] Fanon came to this same conclusion in Wretched of the Earth. So this led to what some scholars have written about as Black Marxism, the tradition of Black radicalism that comes organically from the critical reality of the super exploitation of Black labor worldwide and a response to that politically. That is, that we didn’t gravitate toward Marx simply because we liked his beard or we were seduced by his manipulation of prose, even though I loved the 18th Brumaire. Rather, we were attracted to Marx because it helped to illuminate and make clear the objective material circumstances of poverty, unemployment, and exploitation in Black people’s lives. Which is why we became socialists or Marxists, because we understood that there could not be a path toward Black liberation that was not simultaneously one that challenged the hegemony of capital over labor.
-
IN YOUR new biography of Malcolm, Malcolm X: A Life of the Invention, you discuss three missing chapters from Alex Haley’s collaboration with Malcolm, The Autobiography of Malcolm X. What’s happened to them? And what’s their importance to understanding Malcolm’s life?
THEY’RE IN the safe of an attorney named Gregory Reed. He’s in Detroit, Michigan. They’re in his safe. And, he has them and doesn’t show them to people. Now why does he have them? How did that happen? Well, in late 1992, I believe October, there was an auction of the Alex Haley estate and for $100,000, he bought these chapters that were discarded from the autobiography.
Alex Haley was the ghostwriter and co-author of the book. You have to remember that Haley went on to great fame as the author of Roots, one of the largest-selling books in American history and a docudrama on television that had a profound impact on race relations in the late 1970s. Haley was deeply hostile to Malcolm X’s politics. He was a Republican, he was opposed to Black nationalism, and he was an integrationist. He had been in the Coast Guard for twenty years. But, he also knew a good thing when he saw it.
A charismatic, handsome, articulate Black leader who had a controversial past as a hustler, a ? , a drug addict, a numbers runner, “Detroit Red,” “Little Gangster,” “Little Bugsy Siegel,” who supposedly terrorized the Harlem community in the 1940s and went to jail and was given ten years in prison. He goes through a metamorphosis, he becomes a Black Muslim, he comes out, he explodes onto the scene. He creates seventy to eighty new mosques in less than ten years, turns a small sect of 400 people into fifty- to one hundred thousand by 1960–62. Then, he turns more overtly to politics, he breaks from the Nation of Islam (NOI), he builds two new organizations, the Muslim Mosque Incorporated in March 1964 and the Organization of Afro-American Unity in May 1964. He goes to Africa and the Mideast. He is treated as the head of state. He is welcomed at the Fateh by the Saudi royal household. He sits down with Gamal, eats breakfast with Anwar Sadat in Egypt. He caucuses and meets and gets to know Che Guevara while he’s in Africa, as he alludes to in a talk in 1964 at the Audubon Ballroom. So Malcolm is this extraordinary figure, dies at the age of thirty-nine. It’s a hell of a story. Haley understood that. And so, it was on those terms he agreed to work with Malcolm to write the book. But, what Malcolm didn’t know was that Haley already was compromised and had basically been a purveyor of information—a kind of, not informant, but a client of the FBI in this disinformation campaign against the NOI. Haley had collaborated with the FBI. Malcolm never knew that. In the summer of sixty-four when Malcolm was in Egypt, Haley was taking the book manuscript and giving it to an attorney, William O’Dwyer, rewriting passages of the book trying to get it passed as Malcolm’s survey. Malcolm’s on the run, people are trying to ? him, they’re trying to poison him in Egypt. He’s not going to have time to look at the book carefully. Then, he dies.
Haley adds a seventy-nine-page appendix to the book where he has his own integrationist and liberal Republican interpretation. And then, they have M.S. Handler of the New York Times writing in the front of the book. I mean, you know Malcolm respected Handler. But this is not who you want to lead in to a Black revolutionary’s text. So Haley did a variety of things to reframe the book. And, toward the end of the book, there’s a lot of language in it that simply doesn’t sound like Malcolm. It doesn’t sound like him. There’s a lot of information that is just wrong in the book. They misspelled “As-Salamu Alaykum” several times. They give the story of Johnson Hinton. They have Hinton Johnson. They put the date of this very tragic beating of this brother who’s in the Nation, Brother Johnson, in 1959, rather than the year it actually occurred, which was April 1957. So there are simple mistakes in dates, of names, events that clearly show Malcolm did not have access to the final manuscript. He didn’t see it. And it was published nine months after Malcolm’s death. Betty Shabazz was in no shape to check and recheck facts. So all that says to me is you have to read the autobiography very, very carefully, very suspiciously. It’s a wonderful book. It is a great work of literature. But it is a work of literature. It is not an autobiography. It’s a memoir. And it’s gone through the prism of Haley who was a Republican, integrationist, and a defender of U.S. power. You should read the anticommunist articles he wrote for the Reader’s Guide in the mid-fifties on Hungary. This is the man you’re dealing with. So we must be very careful. I learned I had to deconstruct the autobiography to write the biography. If you go to www.malcolmxproject.net, you will see my biography, the architecture of that, and how I had to deconstruct the autobiography. That’s why we put up the Web site.
MALCOLM X: THE HOUSE ? AND THE FIELD ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ -
WHAT DO you suspect is contained in these missing three chapters?
WELL, I’VE seen them for about fifteen minutes. I met with Gregory. I’ve written about this in my book, Living Black History, which came out last year. Living Black History has a whole chapter on this. I couldn’t use it in the autobiography, but I had to tell the story to somebody. I talked with Gregory on the phone. He’s an attorney. He bought it for $100,000. He wanted to make money off of the material. So I phone him up, we talk. He says, “Fly out to Detroit. Meet with me. Come to my law office. There, I’ll show you the chapters.” As honesty suggests, I get to Detroit. He said, “Don’t come to my office. Are you downtown?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Meet me at this restaurant in an hour.” I go there. He’s about a half hour late. He eventually shows up. And he’s carrying a briefcase. And then he said, “I’ll let you see these for fifteen minutes.” I’ve flown from New York and I have fifteen minutes to read the text. “I’ll let you sit here and read them and I’ll leave and I’ll come back.”
I’m sitting here frantically reading these pages. But it only takes me a few minutes to recognize what they are. They were obviously written sometime between August 1963 to December 1963. There’s a presumption in the text that Malcolm is still in the Nation of Islam. So he hasn’t broken with the Nation yet. What they call for is the construction of an unprecedented Black united front, uniting all Black organizations, led by, get this, the Nation of Islam. So Malcolm is envisioning the Nation actively participating in antiracist struggles and building various types of capacities: economic strategies, housing strategies, health-care strategies with the NAACP, with the Urban League, with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). So he wanted to push this religious kind of semi-Islamic organization into Black civil society in an aggressive way. He wanted to open up the Nation. And, I strongly suspect that Malcolm’s drive and push to reach out to the civil rights community and SNCC and CORE is what got him into trouble inside of the NOI, because the bulk of the NOI had been thoroughly against Malcolm’s proselytization efforts that brought in tens of thousands of new members. The old guard felt threatened by that. Then on top of that, since April 1962, the turning point in Malcolm’s career was the murder of Ronald Stokes in the Nation of Islam’s mosque in Los Angeles. Malcolm flies out to LA and spends over a week there and he calls for a grand coalition, very much like the coalition he talked about in the deleted chapters, with CORE, the NAACP, with SNCC that would be anti-police violence against Black people. And, he was talking about the Nation of Islam participating in that coalition. Elijah Muhammad said “time out,” called Malcolm down and said “you better chill that out and get the hell out of Los Angeles.” Malcolm was deeply embarrassed and humiliated that they had to end the mobilization after they had a member murdered by the LAPD. Other men in the Nation in the mosque were dragged outside, strip-searched naked to humiliate them. And Malcolm had mobilized people and he had to back down.
Malcolm came back to New York and by July 1962 is speaking at a Local 1199 union protest. I have a photo of him speaking at a protest rally in July for the labor union, King’s favorite union, 1199, the largest union today in New York City. In Christmas time in 1962, two members of the Nation, who were selling Muhammad Speaks in Times Square, get arrested by the police. How does Malcolm respond? He puts 140 to 150 Fruit of Islam members—the paramilitary organization, the men in the NOI—demonstrating in Times Square on New Year’s Day. Elijah Muhammad called for no demonstrations, no overt political activity. That’s not what Malcolm’s doing. That’s exactly what he’s doing. And he starts doing that a year and a half before the silencing, before the break.
So you know what happens? The Nation of Islam’s newspaper Muhammad Speaks in late 1962 stops covering Malcolm X. If you go through methodically the last year from December 1962 through December 1963, guess what? You see Malcolm once in his own newspaper. And he’s the national spokesman. You see him more often in the New York Times. And this is like a year before the break. So you can already see where he’s going. It doesn’t take a mind reader to see that Elijah Muhammad only used the “chickens coming home to roost” statement [by Malcolm X, in response to John F. Kennedy’s November 1963 assassination] as an excuse to do what they wanted to do, which was to eliminate Malcolm’s influence, curb his politics. I think that they believed he would submit. Most of Malcolm’s closest followers within the Nation thought he would also submit. They weren’t prepared for a break. Malcolm contemplated a break. I think maybe he wasn’t prepared either. But he did anticipate a possibility of it.
He began, in early 1964, talking with a number of people outside of the Nation of Islam to develop the OAAU, the Organization of Afro-American Unity. When he left the Nation, very few members of the NOI went with him, perhaps maybe 100. The mosque in Harlem had as many as 7,000 members. Only 100–150 left. They became the Muslim Mosque Incorporated (MMI), and Sunni Muslims. But the OAAU was the secular organization with largely working-class and middle-class Blacks and many professionals, writers like Huey and Mayfield, historians like John Henrik Clark. The key organizer was Lynn Shifflet of NBC News, a producer, a young Black woman in her late twenties. There were real tensions between the OAAU and the MMI over ideology and their relationship to Malcolm, because Malcolm increasingly was moving toward the politics of the OAAU, away from the MMI, even though these were people who had put their lives on the line to leave the NOI out of personal loyalty to him. So there were tremendous tensions between these two groups, which I will document in the biography.
-
SO THE Organization of Afro-American Unity really is the culmination of, or the product of, the development of Malcolm’s thought that was written about by Haley in these last three chapters?
THE CHAPTERS that are missing are written prior to the split. Haley says that Malcolm changed his mind after he went to Mecca and decided to deep-six the chapters. Maybe that’s true. We’ll never know. What is true is that it would be nice to print the things that were deleted, put an addendum and appendix on the autobiography. It would be nice to see it. Well I’m not sure. Don’t hold your breath. I saw it for fifteen minutes. Maybe I’m the lucky one. But eventually they will appear. We will see them.
There has been an active suppression of Malcolm’s work and his intellectual legacy for more than forty years. And the suppression has been deliberate and for various reasons. First, many of the key people in his entourage in the Nation and in the OAAU had to go underground. I just interviewed this week James 67X Shabazz (Abdullah Razzaq) who went underground and lived in Guyana for nineteen years, because he was threatened with murder and also threatened by the FBI. So it’s only now in his mid-seventies that he’s returned to the United States several months a year. He lives in Brooklyn with his son. James 67X was Malcolm’s chief-of-staff and his secretary for many years. The others who were closest to Malcolm are now dead. There is Herman Ferguson who is the best eyewitness to the murder. I’ve interviewed him several times and I’m interviewing him once more next week, which will be fun. His eyewitness to the murder, his recount to me, which has partially been published in my journal Souls, is absolutely stunning and it raises many questions about the assassination.
We have, over the last seven years, worked very hard to develop a forensic accounting of the murder. And, we believe we have figured out how the murder took place. That is, the forensics of it. We think we know how that happened. We don’t know who gave the order. But I can tell you what our theory is. The murder took place on February 21, 1965, as a result of the culmination of three separate groups. There was no classic conspiracy, no direct collusion, but, rather, a convergence. Three things had to happen for the murder to take place, and they all did. Law enforcement, the FBI and the NYPD, and its Bureau of Special Services (BOSS), which was its red squad, actively wanted to do surveillance disruption of Malcolm X and possibly eliminate him; certainly the FBI, because their nightmare was seeing King and Malcolm embrace. That was their nightmare. And they realized much to their horror that they were far better off with Malcolm in the Nation of Islam than outside of it, because then he was being treated like a head of state in Africa. They had never anticipated that he would be a houseguest of a Saudi royal family, or that he would be speaking to parliaments from Kenya to Ghana to French Guinea. Malcolm goes to Alabama, three weeks before he’s murdered and reaches out to Dr. King. King is in prison after leading demonstrations. Malcolm goes to Coretta Scott King and he says, “I want you to convey to your husband my deepest respect for him and that I am not trying to undermine Dr. King’s work. My goal is to be to the left of Dr. King, to challenge institutional racism so that those in power can negotiate with King. That’s my role.” So Malcolm understood what his role was. This was the FBI’s nightmare. And so they actively wanted to curtail his influence, if not silence him permanently.
Then you have the Nation of Islam. But what people need to understand is that there were different points of view in the NOI about Malcolm. Some of the leadership, especially in Chicago, the national secretary John Ali, the national head of the Fruit of Islam Raymond Shareef, Elijah Muhammad’s son-in-law Herbert Muhammad, the sons of Elijah Muhammad, Jr., and several others wanted to silence Malcolm permanently. Joseph X, who was a captain of the Fruit of Islam and the Northeast regional security director at Mosque No. 7, formerly Malcolm’s associate and friend, as was John Ali—they actively sought to eliminate him, to blow him up with bombs, to ? him, or firebomb his home or whatever. But other members of the Nation of Islam were against the murder and it is questionable if Elijah Muhammad ever gave the order. It could have been a situation very much like Henry II and Thomas Becket where somebody’s ridding him of his priest. So he doesn’t have to give the order, but the deed is done. It’s understood what needs to be done. But he doesn’t technically give the order.
Then there’s a third group and that’s Malcolm’s own entourage. There were police informants in the group. Gene Roberts who tries to resuscitate Malcolm after he’s shot is an NYPD police officer. He’s a police officer who walks right directly out of the line of fire only seconds before the fuselage goes off—maybe by accident, maybe by design. What is true is that whenever Malcolm spoke, there were at least two dozen cops. There were only two police officers in the Audubon that day and they were assigned as far away in the distance as possible in the building. They were in the rows, in very small-rows in a ballroom adjacent to the large grand ballroom, but separated by a wall and then a vestibule. It was impossible for them to protect Malcolm. There was one police officer in a small park directly across the street from the entrance of the Audubon. No other police officers. They’d been pulled back to the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital four blocks away. No captain, and the guard is usually sitting in the second floor in a booth where they collect money that directly faces the ballroom. You have to walk right past it to get out of the building. No police in the building. Why?
Malcolm gets shot. The hospital, they try to get the ambulance. They can’t get an ambulance. It’s only four blocks away. So men run to the hospital’s emergency room, grab a gurney, and carry his body in a gurney in the street. Seems odd, doesn’t it? His own men, no one checks for weapons at the door. None of the guards are armed. I’ve gone through New York’s Municipal Archives, the police reports of all the guards that day, of every guard. We’ve gone through all that. We know who they were and their names and the changes of the guards. There were three changes of the guards. One around 2:00, one around 2:30, and one about 2:55. We know that several people who were guarding Malcolm that day were not generally part of the OAAU and were assigned to sensitive positions. Guards like William George, who normally guarded Malcolm on the roster were assigned to be as far away from him as possible that day at the front of the building, not next to Malcolm on the rush. The guards who were there rolled out of the way. And Malcolm was naked and alone on the stage.
There’s only one man who could have placed the guards there that way and that was Malcolm’s head of security, Reuben Francis. Francis is the one who does shoot Hayer, who did indeed shoot Malcolm. But Hayer is interviewed very briefly by the NYPD, he’s arrested briefly. They let him go on bond. Then he disappears off planet Earth. And the FBI said, “We can’t find him. We believe he’s in Mexico.” But prior to his disappearance, he’s not even called to the grand jury, even though he’s the only one who shot anybody who was an assassin.
-
The NYPD doesn’t even interview Capt. Joseph, the head of the Fruit of Islam, at Mosque No. 7, even though, to a room of over 120 people, he cold orders Malcolm’s death. There are witnesses to this. And the FBI doesn’t interview him? We found a folder that said Joseph X and it was empty. There were six men who killed Malcolm, not three. Two of the men who were incarcerated and given life sentences were innocent, Norman Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson. They were innocent. They were sent to prison for life. Why? They weren’t even physically there. Johnson used to be Malcolm’s chauffeur. He used to stand out in the rain in front of Mosque No. 7 or in the snow, holding and reserving a parking space for Malcolm when he drove up. He used to phone him and tell him that he was coming before he arrived. Once a month, he went to go grocery shopping for Betty, Malcolm’s wife. You would know this guy if he came to ? you. Everybody would’ve known him if he had walked into the Audubon that day. He wasn’t there that day. Butler was an enforcer for Capt. Joseph. He was a notorious thug in the Nation. They would have known if they walked into the Audubon that day. The two men weren’t there that day and yet they were convicted of murdering Malcolm X. Why?
I believe the district attorney was protecting informants within Malcolm’s group and within the NOI. And perhaps some of those informants were collaborators and committed the crime. So they convicted the wrong people to cover and protect the anonymity of their own agents. That’s a theory. I can’t prove it, but I think we ought to explore it and we should reopen this case. And, hopefully my book will help reopen it. William Kunstler tried to reopen it back in 1977–78 and he failed because he didn’t have the evidence I have. Hopefully, we can reopen it again. -
THE DOMINANT understanding of Malcolm’s life and meaning in mainstream American popular culture really comes from two sources: Haley and Spike Lee’s film. Spike Lee’s interpretation of the assassination shows a Malcolm, who seems to be prepared for his own martyrdom and orders his guards not to be armed on that day, in a way that King with his mountaintop speech also appears to be prepared for what he seems to think is his inevitable fate. Is that a damaging interpretation?
NO, IT’S not and it may be true. Malcolm clearly knew he was going to die. He didn’t know when and I strongly suspect that Malcolm was not going to run away from death and he had the courage to face death. Not that he wanted to die, he didn’t have a death wish. But he had the courage to face death. There is a story, a very influential legend within Shia Islam, about Ali and his grandson Husayn, both of whom perished in a kind of murder in the cathedral, in the case of Ali in the mosque, and in his grandson’s case at Karbala where he was killed in, I believe, 682 in common era. About four years later, women came to Karbala, in today’s Iraq, and began to beat themselves and lament that they had not protected the grandson of Ali. In Shia, Ali is the Shia that we have today. They still gather every year at Karbala. Now hundreds of thousands and maybe a million people lament the events of Karbala. There is nothing greater in Shia Islam than martyrdom, the embrace of death for a higher belief. And to some extent, I think that Malcolm embodied that at that moment. Not that he sought death, but that he did not fear it. That he saw in his martyrdom a way to transcend death that there would be a life after death. I’m sure he was familiar with the legend. Who knows? Perhaps that influenced his actions.
(Malcolm & Farrakhan)
WHAT WILL your biography broadly do to assert a new Malcolm X, itself a reinvention of Malcolm X, as your book is titled, because he reinvented himself many times? What will it do to displace Haley and Spike Lee as the dominant understanding of Malcolm X’s life and meaning?
THERE ARE three core things in the book. The first is what I call a kind of a life of reinvention. Malcolm’s tale is a hero’s tale that’s not unlike Odysseus—a story of travel, of learning, of experience, of ordeals and tests, a classic kind of hero story. It’s a classic Greek story, which frequently or usually ends in death. But at the end, there’s a broader, richer, deeper, critical consciousness that’s achieved. The thing about that story is that Malcolm’s growth comes through a series of artful creative reinventions. He reinvents himself even to the point these reinventions have different names. He was “Jack Carlton” in the summer of 1944. When he was nineteen years old, he wanted to break into show biz and he was at Lobster Pond bar on Forty-Second Street in Midtown Manhattan working as a drummer and professional dancer for about three or four months. He doesn’t write about that in the autobiography. You just have to find out about that. He worked in a bar and grill in Harlem, Jimmy’s Chicken Shack, alongside of the funniest dishwasher and server in Harlem, a guy who had red hair. Malcolm had red hair. So they called Malcolm “Detroit Red” cause nobody had ever heard of Lansing, Michigan, and they called the brother from Chicago “Chicago Red.” His last name was Sanford. We know him today better as Red Foxx, the comedian. So Malcolm and Red Foxx worked in the same restaurant in 1943 and early 1944. He does mention something of this in the autobiography. Malcolm in prison called himself at times Malachi Shabazz. He was Malcolm X. He was El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. He had many, many different names: “Detroit Red,” “Homeboy,” “Mascot,” “Satan” when he was in prison. Yet, through these transformations, he was able to navigate brilliantly a life of reinvention.
What makes Malcolm different from every signature Black figure in American history is that he combines the two central characters of Black folk culture. He is both the trickster and the minister. He’s both. That’s “Detroit Red”—the hustler, the gambler, the outlaw. And, he is also the minister who saves souls, who redeems lives, who heals the sick, who raises the dead. He’s both. King is one. Jesse Jackson is one. Malcolm’s both and he understood the streets and the lumpen proletariat. I hate that phrase, but it comes from Marx. As well as, he saw himself as a minister and an Amun, a cleric. He was always this. And he embodied the cultural spirit of Black folk better than anyone else. When I asked one student about a decade ago, “What was the fundamental difference between Malcolm and Martin?” He said, “Dr. Marable, that’s easy. Martin Luther King, Jr., belongs to the entire world. Malcolm X belongs to us.” There is a tremendous degree of identification on the part of people of African descent, and globally on the part of Muslims, invested in the figure of Malcolm. The very first postage stamp honoring Malcolm X was issued not by the United States but by the Ayatollah Khomeini government of Iran, in 1982, by the Shia Muslims. Perhaps they knew something that everybody else didn’t know.
The second theme in the book is a spiritual journey and Malcolm’s growth in a spiritual sojourn from the periphery of Islam represented by the Nation of Islam to Sunni Islam. There was a price in the journey because he also had to embrace Nasser’s definition of what Islam was in the Pan Arab world. So we have some excellent very interesting articles and speeches Malcolm gave in Cairo. The writings that he did, very critical of the state of Israel in the summer and September 1964, cast Malcolm in a very interesting kind of light as it relates to the Arab struggle and the Palestinian struggle, that heretofore, in the United States, we have rarely seen.
The third theme is betrayal. Malcolm had a capacity ethnographically to read an audience better than any public speaker of his generation. He knew people. He could walk into an audience, read it and give a brilliant address. He could debate at Harvard and Oxford, as well as on 125th Street and Lenox Avenue/Seventh Avenue. He was just a remarkable public speaker. But where his failure came was his consistent inability to make critical accurate judgments of the people closest to him who would betray him. And those included his two brothers Philbert and Wilfred Little who sided with Elijah Muhammad against Malcolm; his chief protégé Louis X/Louis Farrakhan who proclaimed Malcolm to be a man worthy of death, who led the jackal’s course leading to his murder. How do we explain Farrakhan? I sat down with Louis for nine hours in an interview a year and a half ago. We had a fascinating conversation about it. The question I ruminate over is, how much of it is true? Then we have Joseph X, the leader of the Fruit of Islam at Mosque No. 7, who Malcolm had promoted, pulled out of the gutter in Detroit in 1952–53, raised him up to be his chief right-hand person, who then would be betray and try to murder him. John Ali, who had been Malcolm’s secretary at Mosque No. 7, who he promoted to the national leadership, who then conspired to murder him. A variety of people. His closest personal friend Charles Kenyatta had been turned out by the police and was probably a police agent, Malcolm’s best friend, which I’ve only just discovered last week because I just got the file. We have some interesting info. So I think between this data and the other things, a big chunk of the book is about the forensic discussion of the murder and our theory of the murder. I think people will have more than enough information.
-
@waterproof
breh just post the link. I'm not reading all that off the screen. Bad for the eyes.
Post the link so I can print. -
LET’S BRING this full circle. We’re now sitting in your office in 2007 in Bloom?berg’s New York. We’ve gone through a period of social cleansing that was Giuliani’s New York, characterized by police brutality, intense gentrification, privatization of public housing. And I was today at Friday Juma at the Malcolm Shabazz Mosque in Harlem and the message today was one about homosexuality, as an abnormal and immoral practice. The other message was about self-help and the idea of the community needing to raise itself up and take care of its own problems. What does the Malcolm X of your book say to this current political economic conjuncture?
WELL, AN honest representation of Malcolm should show the whole person and his trajectory and his evolution. The trajectory of Malcolm was increasingly anti-corporate capitalist. He talked about the need not to appeal to the United States to redress grievances, but to take the criminal to court, that is, the court of world opinion at the United Nations. He called for what is today known as a South-South dialogue, that is, between the Caribbean, Blacks in Latin America, Africa, and South Asia that would span across continents that would be in part Arab and Muslim, and part Black and Brown. And, he envisioned a global kind of jihad of worlds against Western imperialism and a need for people who had experienced colonialism to take back the power through international bodies that built broad-based unity transnationally. That was what Malcolm’s politics were. It was not bootstrap capitalism, nor was it gentrification. Nevertheless, once you’re dead, your image is up for grabs. By 1972, Richard Nixon had invited, and Betty Shabazz had agreed to be on the dais of the re-elect Richard M. Nixon for president dinner party in Washington, D.C. This was only six or seven years after Malcolm X’s assassination. So once you’re murdered, you can’t control what people who had some sort of relationship to you—whether they’re married to you, or they’re political affiliates or associates—what choices they make. Sad but true. It is particularly sad that from the masjid or mosque, one hears a kind of message that’s more appropriate to Booker T. Washington than Malcolm X. But, nevertheless, the struggle continues.
-
@waterproof
breh just post the link. I'm not reading all that off the screen. Bad for the eyes.
Post the link so I can print.
@Amotekun
) I wasn't sure that you are one of the brothers who's scared of those lanks.....here you go http://www.isreview.org/issues/63/feat-malcolmx.shtml -
amenhotepiv wrote: »I wish alot of these leaders left America and planted there ideas and movemnts in places like Brazil, Jamaica or Ghana. I truly believe they would have been better respected and protected.
I seriously doubt that, especially considering the downfalls of Patrice Lumumba (whom Malcolm incidentally called the "greatest black man to ever walk on Africa") and Kwame Nkrumah. Like Malcolm, those guys weren't saved either.
But I don't think that we can afford to have great men like Malcolm hightail it out of America just because it might be a little harder here than anywhere else. That seems to be what Richard Wright and James Baldwin did. And I consider James Baldwin to a saint. America could've and should've learned so much from that brother in particular.waterproof wrote: »Im going to put it like this because I am About Life and not Death and end this conversation, If you expect me to sit here and watch this game that being played when the people who Killed Malcolm X started this game by trying to Put Malcolm X against the NOI and the NOI against Malcolm X...i will not partake in such foolishness.
^^^ Sounds like a cop-out to me, meh.
This isn't a game. This is simply an intelligent argument between two men who have different opinions about Malcolm X and company. So I don't get why you're bringing feelings into this. I can understand that you respect Malcolm (as I do), but Malcolm, like everyone in this world, isn't perfect. Just because I'm calling out his flaws doesn't mean I'm trying to discredit the man. I'm just being real and arguing a truth in which you seem to be in denial.
I've given plenty of evidence to strongly suggest that the NOI acted alone and killed Malcolm X. All that you have done is repeatedly say "nu uh!" with your fingers stuck in your ears (which is highly disappointing) while offering no evidence to support/defend your claims. You have to hold the NOI accountable for their actions.waterproof wrote: »The same People put Huey P against Bobby Seale, Put George Jackson Black Guerilla Family against the BPP, SNCC leadership against MLK......putting Blacks against Black to this day......the very same people who saying Malcolm X is ? and MLK is ? ........
The "same people"? What people? The government? The government has done terrible things, yes. And they ? the Black Panthers over (I'm still having a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Fred Hampton), even though it is just as true that the Black Panthers ? the Black Panthers over as well. As with the NOI, you have to hold the BPP accountable for their actions as well.
But the thing is, all of this a lot to do with the BPP and has very little to do with Malcolm and the NOI. As for the ? rumors, that's not even worth talking about.waterproof wrote: »So if you want to believe it go ahead nobody is stepping on my toes but i will not Slander or put Malcolm X against NOI, when Both of these Great Black Man in Elijah and Malcolm X loved each other like Father and Son, and was torn apart......Malcolm was in the NOI for 17 years of his life and both men hurted each other it's a cycle in our community....
I'm sorry bruh, but you sound so delusional here. I don't even know what to say.waterproof wrote: »Malcolm X is not innocent nor is Elijah Muhammad both Man have faults.
What!? But that's my line!waterproof wrote: »Malcolm X letter to Elijah Muhammad during his exile when he said there's people putting them against each other.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Edz6IG0hrM
Finally, you offer some promising evidence! However, I have to say that this evidence isn't so relevant because this was recorded before Malcolm ultimately broke away from the NOI. And before he had his Mecca pilgrimage. So before he developed his "new" philosophy that was at odds with that of the NOI. So this was recorded before the ? hit the fan.
I'm not doubting that there were people who wanted to see Malcolm die or fail or fight with the NOI. I'm doubting that these people were so influential and had so much power over Malcolm that they basically puppeteered the rest of his life during and after his break from the NOI. Let's give Malcolm some credit and accountabilty for realizing that the NOI was not cool at all and for having the will to stand up against them in the name of truth and virtue. That's essentially what makes him a saint/hero in my eyes.waterproof wrote: »And history do repeats itself because Louie did the same thing to Khalid that Elijah did to Malcolm, MALCOLM is gone but his spirit is alive, may he rest in peace with our ancestors and his message live on forever.....
I don't know too much about the Khalid situation, but yeah Malcolm is very much alive with us today, at least with some people. He is with me. -
I'm not doubting that there were people who wanted to see Malcolm die or fail or fight with the NOI. I'm doubting that these people were so influential and had so much power over Malcolm that they basically puppeteered the rest of his life during and after his break from the NOI. Let's give Malcolm some credit and accountabilty for realizing that the NOI was not cool at all and for having the will to stand up against them in the name of truth and virtue. That's essentially what makes him a saint/hero in my eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX7ZzuitCQ0
Another admirable and insightful video showcasing Malcolm's strength/will.
-
amenhotepiv wrote: »I wish alot of these leaders left America and planted there ideas and movemnts in places like Brazil, Jamaica or Ghana. I truly believe they would have been better respected and protected.
I seriously doubt that, especially considering the downfalls of Patrice Lumumba (whom Malcolm incidentally called the "greatest black man to ever walk on Africa") and Kwame Nkrumah. Like Malcolm, those guys weren't saved either.
But I don't think that we can afford to have great men like Malcolm hightail it out of America just because it might be a little harder here than anywhere else. That seems to be what Richard Wright and James Baldwin did. And I consider James Baldwin to a saint. America could've and should've learned so much from that brother in particular.waterproof wrote: »Im going to put it like this because I am About Life and not Death and end this conversation, If you expect me to sit here and watch this game that being played when the people who Killed Malcolm X started this game by trying to Put Malcolm X against the NOI and the NOI against Malcolm X...i will not partake in such foolishness.
^^^ Sounds like a cop-out to me, meh.
This isn't a game. This is simply an intelligent argument between two men who have different opinions about Malcolm X and company. So I don't get why you're bringing feelings into this. I can understand that you respect Malcolm (as I do), but Malcolm, like everyone in this world, isn't perfect. Just because I'm calling out his flaws doesn't mean I'm trying to discredit the man. I'm just being real and arguing a truth in which you seem to be in denial.
I've given plenty of evidence to strongly suggest that the NOI acted alone and killed Malcolm X. All that you have done is repeatedly say "nu uh!" with your fingers stuck in your ears (which is highly disappointing) while offering no evidence to support/defend your claims. You have to hold the NOI accountable for their actions.waterproof wrote: »The same People put Huey P against Bobby Seale, Put George Jackson Black Guerilla Family against the BPP, SNCC leadership against MLK......putting Blacks against Black to this day......the very same people who saying Malcolm X is ? and MLK is ? ........
The "same people"? What people? The government? The government has done terrible things, yes. And they ? the Black Panthers over (I'm still having a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Fred Hampton), even though it is just as true that the Black Panthers ? the Black Panthers over as well. As with the NOI, you have to hold the BPP accountable for their actions as well.waterproof wrote: »So if you want to believe it go ahead nobody is stepping on my toes but i will not Slander or put Malcolm X against NOI, when Both of these Great Black Man in Elijah and Malcolm X loved each other like Father and Son, and was torn apart......Malcolm was in the NOI for 17 years of his life and both men hurted each other it's a cycle in our community....
I'm sorry bruh, but you sound so delusional here. I don't even know what to say.waterproof wrote: »Malcolm X is not innocent nor is Elijah Muhammad both Man have faults.
What!? But that's my line!waterproof wrote: »Malcolm X letter to Elijah Muhammad during his exile when he said there's people putting them against each other.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Edz6IG0hrM
Finally, you offer some promising evidence! However, I have to say that this evidence isn't so relevant because this was recorded before Malcolm ultimately broke away from the NOI. And before he had his Mecca pilgrimage. So before he developed his "new" philosophy that was at odds with that of the NOI. So this was recorded before the ? hit the fan.
I'm not doubting that there were people who wanted to see Malcolm die or fail or fight with the NOI. I'm doubting that these people were so influential and had so much power over Malcolm that they basically puppeteered the rest of his life during and after his break from the NOI. Let's give Malcolm some credit and accountabilty for realizing that the NOI was not cool at all and for having the will to stand up against them in the name of truth and virtue. That's essentially what makes him a saint/hero in my eyes.waterproof wrote: »And history do repeats itself because Louie did the same thing to Khalid that Elijah did to Malcolm, MALCOLM is gone but his spirit is alive, may he rest in peace with our ancestors and his message live on forever.....
I don't know too much about the Khalid situation, but yeah Malcolm is very much alive with us today, at least with some people. He is with me.
What evidence you gave that NOI killed Malcolm X, you gave none evidence if NOI or Elijah Muhammad killed Malcolm X you bests believe that it would of been out there right now because Elijah Muhammad House, Phone, Car and Mosque's was tapped at that time by the FBI go look at the FBI records they would of leaked it out to the press.
We have, over the last seven years, worked very hard to develop a forensic accounting of the murder. And, we believe we have figured out how the murder took place. That is, the forensics of it. We think we know how that happened. We don’t know who gave the order. But I can tell you what our theory is. The murder took place on February 21, 1965, as a result of the culmination of three separate groups. There was no classic conspiracy, no direct collusion, but, rather, a convergence. Three things had to happen for the murder to take place, and they all did. Law enforcement, the FBI and the NYPD, and its Bureau of Special Services (BOSS), which was its red squad, actively wanted to do surveillance disruption of Malcolm X and possibly eliminate him; certainly the FBI, because their nightmare was seeing King and Malcolm embrace. That was their nightmare. And they realized much to their horror that they were far better off with Malcolm in the Nation of Islam than outside of it, because then he was being treated like a head of state in Africa. They had never anticipated that he would be a houseguest of a Saudi royal family, or that he would be speaking to parliaments from Kenya to Ghana to French Guinea. Malcolm goes to Alabama, three weeks before he’s murdered and reaches out to Dr. King. King is in prison after leading demonstrations. Malcolm goes to Coretta Scott King and he says, “I want you to convey to your husband my deepest respect for him and that I am not trying to undermine Dr. King’s work. My goal is to be to the left of Dr. King, to challenge institutional racism so that those in power can negotiate with King. That’s my role.” So Malcolm understood what his role was. This was the FBI’s nightmare. And so they actively wanted to curtail his influence, if not silence him permanently.
I agree with this^
Not a cop out, i dont not bring death around me, i am about life, Just like Ahayah asher ahayah said he's the Elohim of Life not the dead, i am bout life and if i decide not to talk about the death of brother Malcolm X no more but about his life then i am bringing life to the brother by not keeping him dead, talking about his death is keeping him dead, giving out negative energy. so what you feel is what you feel no feelings at all, you got me ? up you gave your views, i gave mine what you want months and months of arguing back and forth, leave it up to the posters and lurkers that's what a debate about those who reading not us, we gave our thoughts in this debate now it's done let those who read make a decision... now tell me this what have you gain but for your point of view to be heard, nothing at all..........my thoughts have not changed at all, wasted energy when that energy can be used to bring life to thread in celebration.
-
okay, but i am going to sarcastically point out that the word is "piece"waterproof wrote: »I already said my peace on this so i leave it like that
-
waterproof wrote: »What evidence you gave that NOI killed Malcolm X, you gave none evidence
I think that I have already given various bits of evidence to suggest the likelihood that the NOI killed Malcolm. All you have to do is reread my posts. You could also do some research. I'm sure there's more evidence out there.
But to do some recapping, here are parts of my evidence, some that I already gave and some that I am now giving:
1. The men who directly assassinated Malcolm were NOI members. Mujahid Abdul Halim (who incidentally later renounced the teachings of the NOI just as Malcolm had done), who was paroled just two years ago, had admitted (and regretted) his involvement.
2. Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakahn and many other legitimate members of the NOI publicly threatened Malcolm's life several times. Elijah Muhammad, whom you claim was so buddy-buddy with Malcolm, responded to Malcolm's death by basically saying that he got what he deserved.
3. The NOI were notorious for acts of aggression towards their "enemies." These acts of aggressions were not limited to nonfatal attacks.
4. Malcolm himself forsaw the possibility of dying at the hands of the NOI (see my last posted video).
I am certainly not ruling out the possibility that the government had a hand in Malcolm's death. But once you start saying that they had so divine power to pull strings to such an extent that Malcolm's life and death was like a tragic movie directed by the FBI in which the bad guys are the government and the good guys are Malcolm and the NOI, then that credibility goes out the window. Nobody in that situation was a puppet. Everybody knew what they were doing and had control over their actions. And you still seem to be in complete denial that there was real bad blood between Malcolm and the NOI. That's really my only problem. Maybe the CIA did ? Malcolm, but the fact that you're delusional about the Malcolm's relationship with the NOI and the fact that you seem to even refuse to believe the possibility that the NOI killed Malcolm is comical.
I didn't even care about who killed Malcolm in the first place in regards to our argument. Truth is that we might never know the full truth. My only two arguments were simply:
1. Malcolm was a racist when he was in the NOI (which was a racist organization) and then became a humanist/pan-Africanist when he became a Sunni Muslim,
and 2. Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad were NOT on friendly terms (philosophical-wise and personal-wise) during the final parts of Malcolm's life. But you have them wrapped in each other's arms for some strange reason.waterproof wrote: »if NOI or Elijah Muhammad killed Malcolm X you bests believe that it would of been out there right now because Elijah Muhammad House, Phone, Car and Mosque's was tapped at that time by the FBI go look at the FBI records they would of leaked it out to the press.
I think I already partially responded to this. But you and I know that it never works out like that. Too simple. First, the NOI knew that they were being monitored. Thus, it would be no surprise if they took the measures to work their way around the surveillance. That's what La Costra Nostra did. Second, the FBI had dirt on MLK, but didn't leak it out in full (partially because the FBI seals records). There are easily other reasons that complicate your argument as well.waterproof wrote: »We have, over the last seven years, worked very hard to develop a forensic accounting of the murder. And, we believe we have figured out how the murder took place. That is, the forensics of it. We think we know how that happened. We don’t know who gave the order. But I can tell you what our theory is. The murder took place on February 21, 1965, as a result of the culmination of three separate groups. There was no classic conspiracy, no direct collusion, but, rather, a convergence. Three things had to happen for the murder to take place, and they all did. Law enforcement, the FBI and the NYPD, and its Bureau of Special Services (BOSS), which was its red squad, actively wanted to do surveillance disruption of Malcolm X and possibly eliminate him; certainly the FBI, because their nightmare was seeing King and Malcolm embrace. That was their nightmare. And they realized much to their horror that they were far better off with Malcolm in the Nation of Islam than outside of it, because then he was being treated like a head of state in Africa. They had never anticipated that he would be a houseguest of a Saudi royal family, or that he would be speaking to parliaments from Kenya to Ghana to French Guinea. Malcolm goes to Alabama, three weeks before he’s murdered and reaches out to Dr. King. King is in prison after leading demonstrations. Malcolm goes to Coretta Scott King and he says, “I want you to convey to your husband my deepest respect for him and that I am not trying to undermine Dr. King’s work. My goal is to be to the left of Dr. King, to challenge institutional racism so that those in power can negotiate with King. That’s my role.” So Malcolm understood what his role was. This was the FBI’s nightmare. And so they actively wanted to curtail his influence, if not silence him permanently.
I agree with this^
That's interesting. I wish you would've given me a source though, even though I wouldn't be surprised if the source was biased. But there are other sources that point to independent NOI involvement. Like I said, I don't feel too strongly about who killed Malcolm. We may never know. I'm more interested in our argument about Malcolm's philosophy and his relationship to Elijah Muhammad. -
waterproof wrote: »Not a cop out, i dont not bring death around me, i am about life, Just like Ahayah asher ahayah said he's the Elohim of Life not the dead, i am bout life and if i decide not to talk about the death of brother Malcolm X no more but about his life then i am bringing life to the brother by not keeping him dead, talking about his death is keeping him dead, giving out negative energy.
I couldn't disagree more. Just because you talk about a man's death doesnt mean that you're being negative. Death is a natural and important part of life. If we avoid talking about it, then we're just covering up our eyes in ignorance. You can talk about a man's death and celebrate his life at the same time. But let's not forget the fact that you're the one who brought up Malcolm's death in the first place.waterproof wrote: »so what you feel is what you feel no feelings at all, you got me ? up you gave your views, i gave mine what you want months and months of arguing back and forth, leave it up to the posters and lurkers that's what a debate about those who reading not us, we gave our thoughts in this debate now it's done let those who read make a decision...
Please miss me with all those feelings. Your account of an argument/debate doesnt even make too much sense. Our argument has nothing to do with anyone else. Just me and you. The point of having a debate is to respond to each other's arguments and testing them with the hopes of reaching a resolution (an argument with no resolution, like ours, is an unfinished argument). The problem, here, is that you're either too tired, scared, unreasonable (for sure), or impatient to actually have a reasonable and intelligent debate (which is something that actually takes time and effort!). If so, then just admit it. But don't tell me that this argument has reached its conclusion, and that I should stop responding (even though you're also responding) because it's getting too intense. Now that IS a cop-out. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen? And I don't even know why you're bringing up "months of arguing" because we've only been at it for no more than two weeks, if even two weeks.waterproof wrote: »now tell me this what have you gain but for your point of view to be heard, nothing at all..........my thoughts have not changed at all, wasted energy when that energy can be used to bring life to thread in celebration.
Unless your ego is hurt, I don't know why you're bring everybody else into this as if they matter. Only thing that matters is you and me. I'm not arguing for my point of view to be heard by others. I'm simply arguing with you.
Your thoughts haven't changed because you're delusional and a bit unreasonable. Among the many other things that I have learned, that is one of them. You claim to know what a debate is, but you don't even know the basic elements of good argumentation. You go in a debate already having made up your mind without even listening or responding to the other side of the argument. That's the only reason why this "debate" has dragged on a bit (though I wouldn't call it "wasted energy" on my end). I have had many great "debates" with others and have come to resolutions because they actually enter the debate with an open-mind and actually respond to arguments and counter-arguments without delusions or bias.
Oh, and like I said before, this thread doesnt seem to be one that says that "you must celebrate Malcolm's life when you post here." This is a thread about Malcolm period. Every and anyone is free to post anything that they want, so can we all please stop this "don't say anything bad about Malcolm or else" attitude? Yall beginning to sound like some little ? now. -
it's nothing new but it's a big part of why they were not ultimately compatible. further, let's say the whole truth: they were isolated from other black movements in America BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MUHAMMAD WANTED, and which is why there was such a clash when Malcolm wanted to (and sometimes did) weigh in on social/political issues.waterproof wrote: »this is nothing new, Malcolm X wanted to work with SNCC and other black movements in America but NOI was isolated from other black movements in America-
okay, but here's the thing:waterproof wrote: »Like i said Both Men Pride got in the way and have outsiders and plants to seperate the two-
01. you have clearly evidence of incompatible philosophies and personal drama between the two men.
02. you're not noting any support for these shadowy outsiders; you're just claiming they did... whatever and leaving it at that. seems quite thin.
okay... but if you're trying to sign off while simultaneously posting stuff saying similar things, i am going to keep responding...waterproof wrote: »We can agree to disagree, it's like water off a ducks back.... but i did enjoyed this debate with you and respect your point of views, and understand where you are coming from because you do have some valid points
also, i'm noting you're quoting Marable extensively, which makes me wonder why you're relying on him while simultaneously spinning some of the conspiracies you are. because i assure you HIS contention is that Malcolm couldn't have gotten back with the NOI for the same reason i am noting above.
-
Another great and highly insightful video of Malcolm that even reinforces my wild ideas that Malcolm was a racist but then became a non-racist/humanist and that Malcom and Elijah Muhammad were NOT on friendly terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xXB48l-OlE -
okay, but i am going to sarcastically point out that the word is "piece"waterproof wrote: »I already said my peace on this so i leave it like that
and i am going to point out that i dont give a ? what you think because i used PEACE for reason, It's an idom.....So again I already said my peace.
-
it's nothing new but it's a big part of why they were not ultimately compatible. further, let's say the whole truth: they were isolated from other black movements in America BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MUHAMMAD WANTED, and which is why there was such a clash when Malcolm wanted to (and sometimes did) weigh in on social/political issues.waterproof wrote: »this is nothing new, Malcolm X wanted to work with SNCC and other black movements in America but NOI was isolated from other black movements in America-
okay, but here's the thing:waterproof wrote: »Like i said Both Men Pride got in the way and have outsiders and plants to seperate the two-
01. you have clearly evidence of incompatible philosophies and personal drama between the two men.
02. you're not noting any support for these shadowy outsiders; you're just claiming they did... whatever and leaving it at that. seems quite thin.
okay... but if you're trying to sign off while simultaneously posting stuff saying similar things, i am going to keep responding...waterproof wrote: »We can agree to disagree, it's like water off a ducks back.... but i did enjoyed this debate with you and respect your point of views, and understand where you are coming from because you do have some valid points
also, i'm noting you're quoting Marable extensively, which makes me wonder why you're relying on him while simultaneously spinning some of the conspiracies you are. because i assure you HIS contention is that Malcolm couldn't have gotten back with the NOI for the same reason i am noting above.
ok janklow
-
waterproof wrote: »Not a cop out, i dont not bring death around me, i am about life, Just like Ahayah asher ahayah said he's the Elohim of Life not the dead, i am bout life and if i decide not to talk about the death of brother Malcolm X no more but about his life then i am bringing life to the brother by not keeping him dead, talking about his death is keeping him dead, giving out negative energy.
I couldn't disagree more. Just because you talk about a man's death doesnt mean that you're being negative. Death is a natural and important part of life. If we avoid talking about it, then we're just covering up our eyes in ignorance. You can talk about a man's death and celebrate his life at the same time. But let's not forget the fact that you're the one who brought up Malcolm's death in the first place.waterproof wrote: »so what you feel is what you feel no feelings at all, you got me ? up you gave your views, i gave mine what you want months and months of arguing back and forth, leave it up to the posters and lurkers that's what a debate about those who reading not us, we gave our thoughts in this debate now it's done let those who read make a decision...
Please miss me with all those feelings. Your account of an argument/debate doesnt even make too much sense. Our argument has nothing to do with anyone else. Just me and you. The point of having a debate is to respond to each other's arguments and testing them with the hopes of reaching a resolution (an argument with no resolution, like ours, is an unfinished argument). The problem, here, is that you're either too tired, scared, unreasonable (for sure), or impatient to actually have a reasonable and intelligent debate (which is something that actually takes time and effort!). If so, then just admit it. But don't tell me that this argument has reached its conclusion, and that I should stop responding (even though you're also responding) because it's getting too intense. Now that IS a cop-out. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen? And I don't even know why you're bringing up "months of arguing" because we've only been at it for no more than two weeks, if even two weeks.waterproof wrote: »now tell me this what have you gain but for your point of view to be heard, nothing at all..........my thoughts have not changed at all, wasted energy when that energy can be used to bring life to thread in celebration.
Unless your ego is hurt, I don't know why you're bring everybody else into this as if they matter. Only thing that matters is you and me. I'm not arguing for my point of view to be heard by others. I'm simply arguing with you.
Your thoughts haven't changed because you're delusional and a bit unreasonable. Among the many other things that I have learned, that is one of them. You claim to know what a debate is, but you don't even know the basic elements of good argumentation. You go in a debate already having made up your mind without even listening or responding to the other side of the argument. That's the only reason why this "debate" has dragged on a bit (though I wouldn't call it "wasted energy" on my end). I have had many great "debates" with others and have come to resolutions because they actually enter the debate with an open-mind and actually respond to arguments and counter-arguments without delusions or bias.
Oh, and like I said before, this thread doesnt seem to be one that says that "you must celebrate Malcolm's life when you post here." This is a thread about Malcolm period. Every and anyone is free to post anything that they want, so can we all please stop this "don't say anything bad about Malcolm or else" attitude? Yall beginning to sound like some little ? now.
you feel better now you got that off your chest, i hope so.......lol...what more do you want, i gave my take and i left it like that, ? if you was looking for something more then you better find it elsewhere.....
i mean emotions and ego's being hurt, i hope you really dont believe the ? you tell yourself but hey whatever to pump you up to make you feel better than go ahead and beat that chest for all of us to see....
who in the ? is you to tell somebody how long this so-called debate have to go on, you aint nobody special, i dont have to answer to you or to satisfy your wishes, you gave your thoughts and i gave mine and that's it, what the ? is this the great debaters.
i think you better go pop ? to your kids or your girl homie, only ? in this thread is you and your constant ? and your ? like attitude.
oh yeah, i said i will not talk about his death no more and i will celebrate his life, so i can care less what the ? you do and i didnt say anything about how people choose to give their thoughts in this thread about Malcolm X.......
-
@Waterproof is making this thread his ? keep spitting real ? Proof brotha.
-
a little bit angry for someone who doesn't care... also, "idiom"waterproof wrote: »and i am going to point out that i dont give a ? what you think because i used PEACE for reason, It's an idom.....So again I already said my peace.
hey, i'm not the one declaring i've said what i needed to and then following it with a swarm of posts. so i can only assume you'd like to ask me to not respond to your posts (for some reason), but are reluctant to do so (for some reason). just come right out and ask.waterproof wrote: »ok janklow
seems unlikely since he's bailed on actual debate in this thread, according to himUndergroundraplegend wrote: »@Waterproof is making this thread his ? keep spitting real ? Proof brotha.
-
Whatever toot your horn Janklow it's alright with me, I will never ask u to not to reply to my posts, not the almighty king of the last word, the gall of me to even do such a thing...but really if u think that then the pain u must of put ur mother through when she had to push that big head through the birth canal...
I will continue to contribute to this great thread and will be looking forward to ur and plurach posts -
July 31, 1963
Malcolm X Letter to The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
MUHAMMAD'S MOSQUE NO. 7
113 Lenox Avenue
New York 26, New York
July 31, 1963
Dr. Martin Luther King
C/O Southern Christian Leadership Conference
334 Auburn Avenue
Atlanta J, Georgia
Dear Sir:
The present racial crisis in this country carries within it powerful destructive ingredients that may soon erupt into an uncontrollable explosion. The seriousness of this situation demands that immediate steps must be taken to solve this crucial problem, by those who have genuine concern before the racial powder keg explodes.
A United Front involving all ? factions, elements and their leaders is absolutely necessary.
A racial explosion is more destructive than a nuclear explosion.
If capitalistic Kennedy and communistic Khrushschev can find something in common on which to form a United Front despite their tremendous ideological differences, it is a disgrace for ? leaders not to be able to submerge our "minor" differences in order to seek a common solution to a common problem posed by a Common Enemy.
On Saturday, August 10th, from 1 - 7 p.m., the Muslims are sponsoring another giant outdoor rally at 116th Street and Lenox Avenue. Two previous rallies this summer at the same location, attracted 5000 to 7000 Harlemites respectively. We expect our largest crowd this time, rain or shine.
We are inviting several ? leaders to give their analysis of the present race problem and also their solution. We will also explain Mr. Muhammad's solution.
There will be no debating, arguing, criticizing, or condemning. I will moderate the meeting and guarantee order and courtesy for all speakers. This rally is designed not only to reflect the spirit of unity, but it will give you a chance to present your views to the largest and most explosive elements in Metropolitan New York.
If you cannot come, please send your representative. Invitations to participate have been sent to: Dr. Gardner C. Taylor, Dr. Adam C. Powell, James Farmer, Whitney Young, A. Phillip Randolph, Dr. Ralph Bunche, Dr. Joseph H. Jackson and James Forman.
An immediate reply would be appreciated.
This discussion has been closed.