6 ms·

Would love to see a citation for what you mean by "reactionary racism" - especially from the period in Malcolm's life after he split with the NOI in favor of Su

Would love to see a citation for what you mean by "reactionary racism" - especially from the period in Malcolm's life after he split with the NOI in favor of Sunni Islam. It is true that there are many reactionary elements of NOI ideology and I'm sure you can find all sorts of snippets of quotes from when Malcolm was with them, but not only did he walk away from them, he ultimately gave his life in part because of his split to the NOI (and the FBI stoking tensions around that split via COINTELPRO) Generally more troubling here is the trend of white people to think that they are victims more than perpetrators of racism[1]; you're just backporting it to history here. Something is wrong with you if you can think about the 1960s or anyone from that period, and end up blaming Malcolm X for "racism" with no mention of the racist police, Klansmen, etc. that openly proclaimed and demonstrated their racist power in that era. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390205/Whites-suffer-racism-blacks-Study-shows-white-people-believe-discriminated-against.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390205/Whites-suffe...

serf 12y ago
Klansmen and corrupt police from the 60s were racist. So was Malcolm X. "Usually the black racist has been produced by the white racist. In most cases where you see it, it is the reaction to white racism, and if you analyze it closely, it's not really black racism... If we react to white racism with a violent reaction, to me that's not black racism. If you come to put a rope around my neck and I hang you for it, to me that's not racism. Yours is racism, but my reaction has nothing to do with racism..." - Malcolm X I disagree with him. I believe that hatred towards a race of people is racism, regardless of origins. When one condemns a group for the actions of a few -- i'll never believe that to be correct. You'll notice that he only mentions a reaction to imminent racism; he, however, did not conduct himself in that manner. He could be called a 'reactionary racist' because his racism was not entirely fueled by sociocultural norms, but rather as a reaction to the hatred that he experienced from living near racism which was fueled socioculturally. While I agree that the motives for that form of hatred are more pure and just, it's still hatred. The repeated perpetration of hatred only leads to more hatred, due to the non-linear growth of vendettas which require 'settling'. Just because he was the victim of much hatred doesn't make certain things he said 'non-racist', and as a (loud) public figure, atonement for advocacy of violence and racism in the past does not undo the damage that it caused. The 'nation's teachings' were despicable; how many were affected? I agree that nearly all of the atrocious stuff he said was during his part with the NOI, but there's no time machine. He still did it. He was never an angel, he just improved with age. The work he did towards uniting blacks as a singular entity to stand towards oppressions was fantastic, however the inches closer towards utopia that got us were lost to incessant preaching of racial weakening (coffee and creamer allegory..) and 'Truly Africans' movement, just further alienating the country as a whole. There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past.
- gajomi 12y ago
  >There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past. >He's was never an angel, he just improved with age. This is actually precisely what I find interesting and relevant about Malcolm X. I read his story not just as a man that people followed, but also as a man continuously undergoing a transformation. By virtue of his intellectual integrity in the face of his life experiences "El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz" manages to appear as a completely different person than "Malcolm Little". I am in agreement with you that the much of the activities of the NOI, and even things that Malcolm X was involved with on behalf of them, are absolutely not things to look up to. But again, that is why I think his story affects me, in that I see a man who has attained a degree of enlightenment by inspection of his own self. I find it easier to follow such a person than a saint.
  - danial 12y ago
    His transformation is the most powerful part of this story and probably one of the reasons why so many readers of HN, who value continuous learning and self-improvement, can relate to it.
- corpselord420 12y ago
  >He could be called a 'reactionary racist' because his racism was not entirely fueled by sociocultural norms, but rather as a reaction to the hatred that he experienced from living near racism which was fueled socioculturally. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3Areactionary https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3Areactionary the term 'reactionary' has a specific meaning that is distinct from 'reactive'. its origins are the french revolution, where it was used to describe counterrevolutionary conservatives. it is always used to describe extreme conservativism, and is antonymous to radicalism
- omgtehblackbloc 12y ago
  "When one condemns a group for the actions of a few -- i'll never believe that to be correct." Racism in America is not an act, it's a caste system. It's not something you do, it's a form of social structuring. Black people are systematically disadvantaged, and white people receive privileges due to their race. So you're wrong that racism is just "the actions of a few". This implies that you are a neutral white person, and shouldn't be blamed for hate crimes or whatever, which are done by a minority of bad white racists whom you don't even like. In fact, the caste system of racism is maintained by all of us, in the same way the rest of the status quo is maintained. Mostly just by people being comfortable enough with the status quo that they don't try very hard to change it, and end up reinforcing it without even realizing. The caste system puts in place all the preconditions for the police brutality, the hate crimes, the denial of employment, etc. None of those things could happen without the caste system supporting and incentivizing them. So we're all responsible for the existence of racism - the whole society. But in particular, consider the group of people who systematically benefits from said caste system, and who despite having drastically more power, are doing pathetically little to eliminate the caste system. Were I looking at the situation from afar, it would seem completely reasonable to say "hey, fuck those people".

serf 12y ago

Klansmen and corrupt police from the 60s were racist. So was Malcolm X. "Usually the black racist has been produced by the white racist. In most cases where you see it, it is the reaction to white racism, and if you analyze it closely, it's not really black racism... If we react to white racism with a violent reaction, to me that's not black racism. If you come to put a rope around my neck and I hang you for it, to me that's not racism. Yours is racism, but my reaction has nothing to do with racism..." - Malcolm X I disagree with him. I believe that hatred towards a race of people is racism, regardless of origins. When one condemns a group for the actions of a few -- i'll never believe that to be correct. You'll notice that he only mentions a reaction to imminent racism; he, however, did not conduct himself in that manner. He could be called a 'reactionary racist' because his racism was not entirely fueled by sociocultural norms, but rather as a reaction to the hatred that he experienced from living near racism which was fueled socioculturally. While I agree that the motives for that form of hatred are more pure and just, it's still hatred. The repeated perpetration of hatred only leads to more hatred, due to the non-linear growth of vendettas which require 'settling'. Just because he was the victim of much hatred doesn't make certain things he said 'non-racist', and as a (loud) public figure, atonement for advocacy of violence and racism in the past does not undo the damage that it caused. The 'nation's teachings' were despicable; how many were affected? I agree that nearly all of the atrocious stuff he said was during his part with the NOI, but there's no time machine. He still did it. He was never an angel, he just improved with age. The work he did towards uniting blacks as a singular entity to stand towards oppressions was fantastic, however the inches closer towards utopia that got us were lost to incessant preaching of racial weakening (coffee and creamer allegory..) and 'Truly Africans' movement, just further alienating the country as a whole. There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past.

gajomi 12y ago
>There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past. >He's was never an angel, he just improved with age. This is actually precisely what I find interesting and relevant about Malcolm X. I read his story not just as a man that people followed, but also as a man continuously undergoing a transformation. By virtue of his intellectual integrity in the face of his life experiences "El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz" manages to appear as a completely different person than "Malcolm Little". I am in agreement with you that the much of the activities of the NOI, and even things that Malcolm X was involved with on behalf of them, are absolutely not things to look up to. But again, that is why I think his story affects me, in that I see a man who has attained a degree of enlightenment by inspection of his own self. I find it easier to follow such a person than a saint.
- danial 12y ago
  His transformation is the most powerful part of this story and probably one of the reasons why so many readers of HN, who value continuous learning and self-improvement, can relate to it.
corpselord420 12y ago
>He could be called a 'reactionary racist' because his racism was not entirely fueled by sociocultural norms, but rather as a reaction to the hatred that he experienced from living near racism which was fueled socioculturally. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3Areactionary https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3Areactionary the term 'reactionary' has a specific meaning that is distinct from 'reactive'. its origins are the french revolution, where it was used to describe counterrevolutionary conservatives. it is always used to describe extreme conservativism, and is antonymous to radicalism
omgtehblackbloc 12y ago
"When one condemns a group for the actions of a few -- i'll never believe that to be correct." Racism in America is not an act, it's a caste system. It's not something you do, it's a form of social structuring. Black people are systematically disadvantaged, and white people receive privileges due to their race. So you're wrong that racism is just "the actions of a few". This implies that you are a neutral white person, and shouldn't be blamed for hate crimes or whatever, which are done by a minority of bad white racists whom you don't even like. In fact, the caste system of racism is maintained by all of us, in the same way the rest of the status quo is maintained. Mostly just by people being comfortable enough with the status quo that they don't try very hard to change it, and end up reinforcing it without even realizing. The caste system puts in place all the preconditions for the police brutality, the hate crimes, the denial of employment, etc. None of those things could happen without the caste system supporting and incentivizing them. So we're all responsible for the existence of racism - the whole society. But in particular, consider the group of people who systematically benefits from said caste system, and who despite having drastically more power, are doing pathetically little to eliminate the caste system. Were I looking at the situation from afar, it would seem completely reasonable to say "hey, fuck those people".