- Home
- Business & Marketing (833)
- Editorials (671)
- Entertainment (2033)
- Fashion (1032)
- Highbrid (189)
- Honeys (2876)
- Humor (948)
- Music (5222)
- Need to Know (2224)
- News (2076)
- Podcasts (4)
- ARCHIVE
Wednesday, December 3, 2008 | 11:16am
Columnist Spits Venom On Malcolm X, Russell Simmons Blogs in His Defense
Stanley Crouch’s hate filled rejection of Malcolm X’s legacy in response to al-Zawahiri’s “Obama tape” fuels Simmons’ response
Last week I meant to address a recent article in the New York Daily News written by black columnist Stanley Crouch but with the holiday I didn’t get an opportunity. The article horrifically titled “Where does Barack Obama stand on terrorism? X marks the spot” is in response to the al Qaida terrorist, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s recent tape praising Malcolm X and condemning Barack Obama. However as I’m learning it wasn’t just me whose eyebrows it raised and was actually addressed by Russell Simmons in a blog post on Global Grind.
Let me start from the beginning. A couple of weeks ago we talked about al-Zawahiri’s venom and how his disdain for Obama was silly and perhaps a marketing ploy stir his supporters and to maintain some relevance in the “terrorizing industry.” Stanley Crouch who I’ve always respected as a journalist and as an avid lover of jazz music, however took a different tone, one that myself and many others took offense to.
The threatening video issued last week was intended to whip up support for what is known as radical Islam by using a martyr to a lost cause, Malcolm X.
Malcolm X was one of the naysayers to American possibility whose vision was permanently crushed beneath the heel of Obama’s victory on Nov. 4. Though his ideas had nothing to do with the ultimate form of nonviolence – voting – those desperate to praise him will pretend now that he was actually a civil rights leader! This has been going on for an unforgivably long time, especially among black academics.
Malcolm X had nothing to do with Obama’s accomplishment as did none of the other militants who preached their own version of separatism and gleefully attacked the civil rights movement as offering no more than pie in the sky and misleading black people.
So Malcolm X was no more than a charismatic heckler of the civil rights movement and a man whose career was soaked in racism, potted history and absurd ideas of one sort or another. He was a good rabble-rouser and he was a good saber rattler. On Feb. 21, 1965, he was murdered in public as one of the victims of the tribal wars that distinguished radical black nationalist cults and purported “revolutionary” leadership like the Black Panthers.
YIKES! I could literally quote the entire article which you can read here. Stanley what happened baby? I read this guy’s column all the time. But this article is drenched in venomous hate for Malcolm X and is almost so ridiculous that it appears sarcastic at times. I highly suggest reading it (don’t worry its short.)
Its pretty clear that Crouch has a hard-on for Obama and as you’ll read Dr King too and I guess for good reason but to reduce Malcolm X to a sidebar or footnote in the Civil Rights era as a “charismatic heckler” is laughable. Yes, perhaps Dr. King’s legacy will always trum that of X or any other Civil Rights leader but anyone in Dr. King’s shadow is dwarfed in comparison. To say that “If not for Spike Lee’s film about him, Malcolm X would have been forgotten,” is antagonistic and is thumbing the nose at the philosophies of a fallen hero and that’s unfair. Sure Malcolm X wasn’t perfect he was a little radical but given the fear of white oppression and unwillingness for some blacks to mobilize in the early stages of the civil rights movement his radical rhetoric was necessary and should be honored.
As I read this morning, Stanley Crouch doesn’t just have the insignifcant bark of my editorial blog to deal with but also the disapproval of Russell Simmons, pioneer of the hip hop movement that was vital in helping to elect Crouch’s fantasy husband, Barack Obama.
[B]oth King and Malcolm X were transformative leaders whose legacies are not in conflict as Crouch would mislead you to believe. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell was correct and on point when he referred to Barack Obama as a “transformative leader.”
This is where Ayman al-Zawahiri was also in serious error. Obama is not a “House Negro” or a “Field Negro.” Obama will be the President in the White House for all Americans and for all people of goodwill and principle. Name calling, stereotyping, living in the past and polarizing people will not lead us forward to a better future…
Stanley Crouch and Zawahiri appear, however, to have at least one thing in common: they both engage in counterproductive rhetoric to smear history rather than to change it for the good all people.
Well said… very good comparison Russy!
FILED IN Editorials, Need to Know
Sadly it’s the same BS we see every day.
.
There are those who believe that any criticism of the policies of the United States amounts to treason; that you must somehow support your country actively and vocally in any action that it takes; even when those actions might be immoral.
.
It seems to me that Malcolm was hated for two reasons: 1) he spoke the truth, even when the truth was dangerous and ugly. 2) his was a philosophy of self-help. He didn’t ask anyone to give him help, he called on people to help themselves.
.
At the time, such empowering talk was dangerous in a world where the black man was supposed to be treated as some sort of pet, never able to help himself without the loving hand of some do-gooder white man.
.
I know that as a white man I’m supposed to be all about Dr King. Dr King this, and Dr King that. But personally, I would trade 5 Dr King’s for one Malcolm X; this despite the fact that up until nearly the end Malcolm would have considered me a ‘white devil’.
.
As far as Stanley Crouch goes; I don’t really know. Maybe he’s someone who automatically distrusts Muslims, assuming that they’re all terrorists. Maybe he’s too comfortable in his own world to risk losing it over a man who’s been dead for so long.
.
But to claim that Malcolm wasn’t a leader is an insult, not only to Malcolm himself but to anyone who possesses the slightest intelligence or sense of history.
No Stanley
CrotchfaceCrouch didn’t!He is WAY out of line for writing something like that. Malcolm X was a better leader than Dr. King in certain situations. He spoke to a different audience, but had some of the same dreams that King had for all people.
.
I applaud you on writing this! Even if Spike had never made the film, most people would have remembered Malcolm anyway. In fact, that’s WHY Spike made the film- because Malcolm meant so much to us in the first place. *mumbling: “Old ugly bastard!”* You suck CROUCH!
Great point re: Spike Lee. That’s totally ludicrous to assume Malcolm would fade from memory. I wasn’t around when Malcolm was but every hood in America has a street that adorns his name just like MLK.
.
As far as the picture, lol I though you guys would get a kick out of his appearance and that’s actually a better one.
beetlejuice, beetlejuice, beetlejuice
LMFAO!!!!!! CLASSIC, Marcus!
If you’re truly are a reader of Crouch, then you know he’s never been a fan of the far left (ie. black radicals). Come on Juan, this is classic Crouch!
And to his defense, there was a point where Malcolm, like many other radicals of the time, poked fun at Dr. King and “non-violence.” Malcolm was all about the “Ballot or the Bullet” for many years. I believe had Malcolm lived, he would’ve radically changed his views.
Stanley Crouch has ALWAYS been what many of us view as an Uncle-Tom, forever siding with the Right. He mos def hates hip-hop!
Malcolm X was a radical yes…but he was a civil rights leader. To speak so highly of Martin but to put down Malcolm both deceased is unacceptable. Crouch is a moran for that. I don’t have not qualms with his politics. If he wants to be ultra conservative, borderline neo-con then fine. Why then vote Obama but that’s a different story. Its one thing to speak about politics but another thing to spit venom on a dead man who dedicated his life to make sure CROUCH had a job. His comment about Spike was so out of line its ridiculous. I usually read Crouch for his comedic value or his interviews with Jazz musicians but this was terrible.
The Relevance of Malcolm X
Backstory
There are few figures in American history that spark more debate than Malcolm X. I am convinced the reason for much of the debate is ignorance. This discussion is an attempt to distill the philosophy of Malcolm X by examining the critical year of his life, from March 1964 to his death in February 1965. This tumultuous year was the only period of Malcolm’s life where he exclusively spoke his own mind in his own words. If you listen to speeches or interviews prior to his leaving the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1964, you will almost always hear the words, “The Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches…” preceding whatever he said. It was only after the split that really spoke his mind. I am not suggesting that everything Malcolm said prior to the split should be ignored, but, clearly, his philosophy on the world profoundly changed in the last year of his life; and it is this transformation that makes Malcolm X the most fascinating Afro-American leader of the 20th century.
Malcolm entered the public arena as the most articulate and intellectual figure of the Black Muslim movement in the US during the 1950-60’s. That movement was led by Elijah Muhammad, but the apprentice clearly outshone the leader. For most of his adult life, Malcolm revered Elijah Muhammad as a messenger of God, and therefore his words carried a certain amount of divine weight. Some of Elijah Muhammad’s more incendiary ideas were on the necessity of absolute segregation of races and the idea that all white people are devils. Malcolm would repeat these ideas with verve and passion. But after it was revealed to Malcolm that Elijah Muhammad had fathered eight children out of wedlock with six of his teenage secretaries, Malcolm’s faith in his leader was shattered.
I can only imagine the profound effect this revelation had on the psychology of Malcolm X. Elijah Muhammad was the light that led him out of the darkness of mental (and physical) imprisonment, and it is clear that Malcolm was a true believer. However, out of the ashes of this shattered faith arose a new understanding of the world, and therein lie the true relevance of Malcolm X. During the last year of his life, Malcolm displayed true courage, strength, and thoughtfulness, by not only revisiting all concepts of racial interaction, but also by exposing the philosophy of his former leader as hypocrisy.
Rejection of Racism
The major catalyst in Malcolm’s philosophy was his trip (hajj) to Mecca in April 1964. It was on that journey, that he began to see himself primarily as a human being living in a world inhabited by other human beings. Under the teaching of Elijah Muhammad, and the philosophy that “white men are devils,” Malcolm would have thought it impossible to find white men in Mecca performing the same holy duty that he was. However, that was precisely what he found. He began to see that he was not a black man praying alongside white men, but he was simply a man praying with other men. This understanding would elevate Malcolm’s arguments and struggle from the (manmade) civil rights struggle to the (god given) human rights struggle.
When Malcolm was invited to speak and debate at the Oxford Union in November 1965, he pushed his human rights platform, while addressing the charge that he was pro-Apartheid. He stated that was not in favor of any type of segregation. He took the further step of advocating non-recognition of race in general; choosing to approach the problem as a human being. He also spoke in favor of interracial marriage on the Pierre Berton show in January 1965, but he took it one step further once again; choosing not to recognize it as interracial, since it was simply one human marrying another human. This would be a controversial statement to make in 2008, but the fact the Malcolm X, who was a proponent of absolute segregation on 1963, made it in 1965 is absolutely amazing. This is the relevance of Malcolm X; redemption. He believed, prior to their split in 1964, that everything Elijah Muhammad said was divine, but once he realized the truth about the NOI, he started doing his own thinking. The results were earth shattering.
Human Rights
One of the lesser known transformations in Malcolm’s philosophy was his break with traditional civil rights advocates/tactics, and his entry into the idea of human rights. This is an important distinction that is often lost on modern audiences. The civil rights that we enjoy in the US comes from manmade law, primarily from the Constitution (Amendments 1-10, 13,14,15 ), but also from such laws as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We don’t really think about it, but these rights, given by man, can be taken away. The idea of human rights is more vague but more powerful. It is the idea that all of us are born with certain rights, and that any violation of these rights is an affront to mankind in general and, thus, a violation of natural (god-given) law. This idea is not generally accepted in the 21st century and was less accepted in the 20th, but this type of progressive thinking shows the depth of Malcolm’s maturation in the last year of his life. It was Malcolm’s intention to bring this human rights argument before the United Nations. Unfortunately, he never got that chance.
Remarkably, Malcolm ceased to be solely a leader of Black Muslims, he was now leading the entire nation toward a deeper level of consciousness. He still led a Muslim group called the Muslim Mosque Incorporated, but he also founded the non-religious Organization of Afro-American Unity where he stressed non-sectarianism as the foundation of a movement that would welcome anyone interested in getting results.
The eloquent actor/activist Ossie Davis delivered the eulogy at Malcolm’s funeral in 1965. During which, Davis called Malcolm a great Afro-American, stating that the term Negro was far too small for a man of Malcolm’s stature. With all respect to Ossie Davis, I would argue that the term Afro-American was also too small for Malcolm. He was simply a great man. This is the relevance of Malcolm X.
Confronting the Past
Malcolm was all too aware of the fact that his former mentor and spiritual leader was a fraud, and that the words he spoke in the past, upon the teachings of this fraud, would always haunt him. Malcolm also realized the fact that the NOI was a potentially violent group that would not hesitate to silence anyone attacking the “Honorable” Elijah Muhammad, just as Malcolm would have done when he was still a member. Despite the danger, and in furtherance of his redemption, he attacked both the NOI and its leader. He knew this meant his death. He did it anyway. He spoke out against the perversions of Islam preached by the NOI, and he personally condemned Elijah Muhammad’s fathering children out of wedlock.
On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was killed by three men, all members of the NOI. Whether there was some greater conspiracy involved is not relevant to this discussion. One week prior to his death, Malcolm’s house was firebombed while he and pregnant wife and daughters lay asleep. They narrowly escaped, but Malcolm knew his days were numbered. He stated that he was not afraid of anyone or anything and would continue to speak his mind. That is unshakable courage. That is the relevance of Malcolm X.
“If you’re not ready to die for it, put the word freedom out of your vocabulary.”