Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomjen3 | Hacker News Reader

Is it still worth reading for somebody who despise the man? Both what he was (a robber) and what he became?

It seems to me, in many cases, hate for Malcolm X is usually centered around his view of militancy as a viable option and his connection to the Nation of Islam.

America was established through violent militancy, so I don't understand the first point. Many great conflicts have proven that as a viable solution.

The second point makes many people uncomfortable because of the NOI's vocal opinions of the white race as a whole. While the "white devil" philosophy can be supported with case studies of deplorable acts against blacks, such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynchings, to name a few, it was and is a gross exaggeration that is becoming less and less supportable. Malcolm X, later in life, experienced a different side of whites and race, that later led him to shun those negative beliefs.

I admire him for his zest for learning, and his courage to have a militant position in a time of great injustice. I was born in a much better America, and have still faced racism that made me feel worthless, defenseless, and angry -- but I still hesitate to even call out racism for fear of negative reprisal.

While I don't think you or any contemporary "non-racist" white person is responsible for those acts, denial of the past and its lingering effects, and hatred for those who fought to end it doesn't help. Without the fear of violent revolution, I question if we would have progressed as far as we have.

Also -- it took the Civil War to end slavery in this country.

> While the "white devil" philosophy can be supported with case studies of deplorable acts against blacks

To be clear, the NOI teaches that "white" people are literal devils - they were created by a scientist named Yakub ~6,000 years ago for the express purpose of fighting the "original" (i.e. "black") people.

I can sympathize with mistrust, and even hostility, towards a culture which historically and presently supports systems which oppress those of ones own culture but I find such teachings undesirable and dangerous. I only bring it up because I don't think most people are aware that the NOI teaches such things (or that they have ties to Dianetics/Scientology, but I digress).

It should also be noted the NOI didn't invent this play. The Israelites used a story of a curse upon Canaan to justify their conquest of it, and later various "white" religions like some Protestant sects, Mormonism, some Baptist groups, etc used the same story or "the mark of cain" to justify their treatment of the people of African origin - another set of disturbing/dangerous teachings that I'm sure many people today are unaware of.

At any rate, I agree that someone subscribing to any of these religions, or advocating actions I don't approve of wouldn't preclude me from being able to admire certain aspects of their personality/life or learn from them.

Thanks, for the clarification. I am aware of the aliens and recent Scientology association. I am not NOI, nor prescribe to their beliefs, but I can see why they were attractive during the "civil rights era".

To be clear, the old testament curses an entire race of people because Noah got drunk and his son saw him naked, so one of his grandsons and all the descendants thereof were to be cursed (and then later on exterminated as part of stealing their land).

I'm not sure why you gave the crazy details of the NOI story and the weirdly detached and vague paraphrase version of the OT one.

Use of violence to establish territory or control, or to attain freedom from oppression is human nature. There is absolutely nothing uniquely American or white about it.

It should be pointed out that he later left the NOI and became an adherent to mainstream Islam. That was another step in his transformation.

It's worth reading the book just to understand in some small way the experience of Malcolm X and people like him. His father was murdered (probably by the police & because he was becoming politically active) and then his mother was cheated out of the life insurance because his death was falsely ruled as a suicide.

In turn the struggle of bringing up her family ruined his mother's health and probably her sanity.

So one can understand his being bitter and twisted. What is impressive is that he overcame this. I would put this book on any must-read list.

Malcolm X was one of the very rare individuals who charted his own course through life. Most deviate only the tiniest fraction from what is dictated by their background and mentors. Not Malcolm X. At the same time, he seemed to tragically lurch from one master to the next, although always seeking a more benign one. I like to think he would have rebelled against organized religion next, if he'd had time to do so. Many would disagree with me on that last point though, with good cause.

As an agnostic "white devil", I doubt Malcolm X and I would have been able to tolerate each other, even very late in his life. However, I'm still fascinated by the story of a man who continually and successfully struggled to grow beyond his influences. He had a great mind. It's interesting to ponder what he could have done had he come from a different background.

Even if you have no patience for reading his autobiography, at least watch the Spike Lee flick based on it. It's a great watch.

That's a great point. It's fascinating to think where he would have ended up after 20 or 40 more years of study and contemplation.

Yes, it is worth reading. You hinted at change or transformation. I personally think this subject is what makes the book such a classic. The books shows his transformation from a "mascot", "Homeboy", "Harelemnite", "Minister Malcolm X" to "El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz". Those are the titles of a couple of the chapters. The voice of each chapter is almost written from that view. It's fascinating because you can see the transformation of his life and views. It's probably one of my favorite books because it shows how a man can change.

Seems to me there isn't anyone for whom it would be more worth reading.

This is one of the most insightful comments I've read in recent memory.

It's a fascinating story, and a really well-written book (co-authored by Alex Haley). I don't think you have to like the man at all to get something out of the book, although it may change your opinion of him slightly. He changed his stance on a great many things over the course of his life and popular views on him often disregard this.

Yes. And it will probably be one of the most instructive exercises you can engage in with walking a mile in another person's shoes.

Why do you despise the man?

I'm not tomjen3 or even that up on Malcolm X but note from Wikipedia that when that when with the Nation of Islam he taught that "white people are 'devils' that blacks are superior to whites, and that the demise of the white race is imminent." and that he split with the Nation of Islam over saying the Kennedy assassination was 'chickens coming home to roost' while they sent condolences to the family. All seems a bit iffy to me.

> even that up on Malcolm X

Then you shouldn't comment on a subject that you know nothing about. Read his book, listen to his speeches, watch the movie, study the civil rights movements and then comment on what you feel is "iffy".

Maybe but I don't much like "<people A> are 'devils' that <people B> are superior to <people A>" bunk. Some of my family got gassed on account of that kind of stuff not long before Malcolm did his thing and it's still racist even if the speakers skin is dark in colour.

There is a big, big difference between despising a group of people because you hate and fear anyone different from yourself, and despising a group of people because every one of them you've ever met has been directly or indirectly complicit in the oppression of you and everyone you love.

Both viewpoints are wrong, of course. But one of them is rooted in selfishness and evil, and the other is rooted in compassion and justice, perverted by that same evil. One of these can be understood and, perhaps, redirected in a more healthy direction--as it seems Malcolm X may have been in the process of doing. In the real world, you can't just slot everyone into convenient "good" and "evil" cubbyholes.

But what about the fact that he later rejected the "white devils" philosophy of the NOI? Doesn't that matter?

and that he split with the Nation of Islam over saying the Kennedy assassination was 'chickens coming home to roost' while they sent condolences to the family

Except... he split from the Nation after making a pilgrimage to Mecca and seeing people of all races getting along, helping each other and united in a single purpose. That fundamentally changed his views on race (and his religion -- from what the Nation taught, to more orthodox Islam). It is absolutely no coincidence that he was assassinated by members of the Nation shortly afterward.

Given that whites of the era were teaching that whites were superior to blacks (and using that belief to justify all sorts of mistreatment) I can entirely forgive someone promoting the opposite view.

Yes.

If you haven't read the book, how can you even begin to have formed a judgment of him?

Now, I'll admit that I personally don't know enough about Malcolm X to form an educated opinion of him, but you seem to be making the assertion that this biography is the only existing source of information on the man. That's pretty ridiculous. Perhaps tomjen learned about him from another source?

I know I will probably be sorry for asking this... but... wouldn't that be kind of the point ?

If you learn about Korean Comfort Women from Japanese text books... do you really have enough information to form an opinion ? I mean... shouldn't you ask ... say ... some of the actual Korean Women about their experiences ???

You can't observe everything yourself. You have to seek out sources with minimal bias or understood bias and place some amount of trust in them, or you'll be paralyzed.

And it's not like autobiographies in general are to be trusted either.

You gave an extremely narrow example. There are a multitude of resources on virtually any subject. Would I expect a textbook on African American history to cover Malcolm X with enough depth to be considered a definitive source? Of course not, but that doesn't make the textbook useless. We don't have to limit ourselves to a single source of information, so why would we? The original post I was replying to said "How could you have formed an opinion if you haven't read the book." As if reading that particular book is the only way to learn anything about the man. Malcom X's biography is probably a great book, and I hope to find the time to read it soon, but that doesn't mean the statement wasn't absurd.

Typical white devil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com