Yesterday was the birthday of the late El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, also known as Malcolm X. He would have been 84 years old. I often wonder what Malcolm would say about race relations today. Would he think we have come far? Would he feel satisfied that we have a black president? Was Malcolm's sole motivation the symbolic shifting of race relations in this country or was it the actual change in the material conditions of the black community?
As an up and coming activist there were few books that influenced me as much as the Autobiography of Malcolm X. Not only was his life inspiring and continues to inspire myself and others committed to the movement for social change world-wide, his voice of dissent to mediocrity masked as social welfare to benefit the black community, as opposed to full self-determination and self-actualization, has yet to be replaced. His voice maintains in the background always motivating us for true equality, for basic human rights, and to demand a better world, "by any means necessary" for those that have survived a brutal history of colonization, racism and slavery.
So happy birthday Malcolm X. Your spirit continues to inspire those of us that see injustice and continue to work for a better world. I can't imagine where we would be without you.
Check out this great video of one of his most influential speeches.
Also, check out Grace Lee Boggs on knowing Malcolm X, Adrienne Maree Brown on the application of Malcolm's teaching to building power in communities around violence and Melissa Harris-Lacewell on the legacy of Malcolm X.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Where would we be without Malcolm?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13817
This is someone I have the deepest regard and respect for (as well as the late Dr Betty Shabazz who is such an underrated figure as she and Corretta Scott King were huge parts of their husbands legacies). I'm stunned in the best of ways to see this posted here.
He was truly a great man. Nice post.
As much as I love the work you do Samhita, I must say that I am angry that this post is a day late. I also wonder why it fell to you to acknowledge the importance of Malcolm X and not one of your fellow (read: white) bloggers? I roamed around the blogosphere yesterday looking for references to Malcolm and not surprisingly there was little to no mention of him except on black blogs...gee imagine that. Malcolm X is ignored by many because he makes them uncomfortable much the same way as people who profess to love MLK cannot seem to quote him past 1963 gee I wonder why that is (yes huge snark). This kind of purposeful erasure or a day late and a dollar short recognition is exactly why WOC get pissed and feel unwelcome in feminist spaces.
Samhita is one of those persons whom represent the best of what feminism should be I have the deepest respect for her. And yeah MLK is for the most part encased in that comfortable 1963 mode for the many. After that he gets messy for them.
Renee, thanks for the comment. I mean, ouch, but I see where you are coming from, even if your tone feels hurtful.
I think we can speculate why it is an oversight or subconscious, conscious or maybe even strategic reasons why this post is a day late. I can't speak for other editors at Feministing, but I am writing today and I wrote about it today. That doesn't mean I care about it less because it is a day late or that it is an oversight. And I don't think my post is a "dollar short!"
What I will say tho, is that the reason I wrote about it is because of the community I am part of which is anti-racist, grassroots organizing, activist community so it was on blast over all my social media. And I think one thing I can read out of the point you make is that all of us are drawn to activism for multiple reasons and motivated by different leaders. Malcolm is someone that motivated me greatly, so I found it important that I write about him, even if a day late.
There are many blogs that did and didn't write about him, both feminist and race-focused blogs. All of us make editorial choices and I think it is dangerous to say that they are merely based on racist standpoints. That is of course PART of the problem and always is, but I don't think that is the only reason. And a long-term inability to incorporate a real anti-racist standpoint in feminist organizing still stands, that is not unique to the way that issues are represented at Feministing, which I think is very diverse in voice and issue coverage.
Samhita;
I did not mean to imply that your post was not good, in fact I enjoyed it. My issue was the timing and the fact that once again it fell to you to write it. You are largely the reason I continue to read feministing and in fact I rarely comment unless it is a post written by you.
My point is that issues that are important to woc are not written about with the same seriousness or concern as those that effect white women. The erasure of Malcolm is a huge deal and none of the white bloggers here bothered. Feministing is not alone in its erasure because neither Pendagon, Shakesvuille or Feministe bothered either, despite the "we believe in intersectionality" bullshit. Most often when women of color or racial issues are brought up, it is as anecdotal evidence to point to the ways in which white women are oppressed. If white women cannot be centered in the conversation the issue is deemed irrelevant and ignored. The missing Malcolm posts highlight this point.
There have been only a few comments on this thread and already it is filled with misinformation based in white privielge. Whiteness does not have to concern itself with our heroes, or our history and yet each and every day we must learn about whiteness in order to negotiate it for the sake of survival. So yeah, you could say I am pissed with having to say the same things to the same people repeatedly. Not even with grading on the bell curve can it be said that feminism (or at least the blogosphere version) has shown a committed effort to deal with its privielge and take a truly anti-racist perspective. A while ago I wrote a post entitled I am not a feminist and each day this decision is proven correct.
Renee I just want to thank you for your posts on this topic. I don't know how you keep it up but your voice is definitely appreciated.
"Purposeful erasure?" For being a day late? I'm suprised he got mentioned at all. He's not exactly a feminist icon.
That depends on your feminism.
Yeah, it really depends on what your politics are. Feminism doesn't stand alone from your political standpoint. Malcolm X informed my feminism as much as any of the other great leaders I look up to.
I have two things I want to say. First, why must we hero-worship people we don't personally know? The elite powers know that everytime Ghandi, Che, or Malcolm X is mentioned it makes people feel like they aren't "great" enough to do real, meaningful social work. Second, Malcolm X was a man who advocated violence and racial segregation. What's so "great" about that?
Sapien your comments reveal an ignorance that is astounding. Don't profess to speak about that which you clearly know nothing about. He did not advocate violence. He simply said by any means necessary and that does not mean becoming violent that is simply your interpretation of his words. I would further more point out that as he progressed he did not advocate racial segregation. In fact when he started his new temple away from the auspices of Elijah Muhammad her sought partnership with whites.
Malcolm is a complex figure and cannot be reduced to the sound bites that the white media loves to refer to out of white panic. Oh btw where you even
Actually, his "by any means necessary" statement was almost certainly meant to be ambiguous towards the use of violence which, in my book, is the same as advocating it. And, he remained a black nationalist until his death, which means that believed in some form of segregation.
Again your interpretation of him means absolutely shit to me. He did not say go out and beat a white person, however during the time in which he lived, much like today Blacks where/are victims of white violence.
He was also not the first or the last back leader to call for a segregation. He did this because he saw the damage of living in a so-called integrated society that daily seeks to place blackness at the bottom of the race and class hierarchy.
While today you may vent about a seperationist approach I submit to you that the US is integrated in name only. White flight occurs very quickly when one to many "darkies" move into a neighborhood. How many times have blacks been pulled over being in the wrong area after sunset and yet we supposedly have freedom of movement. So please don't give me this shit about separation being harmful when whiteness seeks to affirm a divide on a daily basis.
I agree with everything you said, except for when you tried to say that a division between black people and white people would be a good thing. I very much disagree.
I don't think Renee said that at all actually. Or even implied it.
I think what was meant by the comment was that white people get all up in arms at Malcolm X having promoted separation between black and white people is ridiculous considering the lengths to which white people go to assure that they are kept far apart from black people.
I did not try to say that a division was a good thing. I simply explained why he say segregation as a good thing and pointed out that though it is no longer part of the legal framework much of interaction today is still very much segregated.
Ok, cool. My bad. I misinterpretted what you said.
If you don't respect icons, at least respect thinkers, which Malcolm X was. Maybe if you spent more time reading and thinking, and less spouting off, you'd understand the situation better. Perhaps you should start by reading Malcolm X's autobiography?
An autobiography? The most impartial, inflated, biased thing you could ever possibly read, and you would formulate opinions based on them?
sorry, i dont know why i typed 'impartial'
When you read someone's autobiography, you at least understand their worldview. And that's where the problem here lies, because we clearly do not have a consensus here on what Malcolm X's worldview was. So why not?
Besides, it was co-written by Alex Haley, one of the best authors of the 20th century.
Although I can see why he was a hero to many, replacing one type of supremacist racial hatred with another is not my idea of progress.
"In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then—like all [Black] Muslims—I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years." -- Malcolm X, two days before his death, speaking with Gordon Parks (famous photographer and film director)
Again yet another ignorant interpretation of Malcolm. Your whiteness is showing. It is not supremacist to speak truth to power and speak about the wrongs that whiteness has done to POC. He did not state that blacks where better but that we are as good as white people. Whiteness has always had a problem with black pride because it seeks to reduce us to maintain its hegemony.
He was a proponent of the supremacist NOI for the majority of his politically active life, and only renounced the movement in the years before his death.
Who knows - if he hadn't been assassinated relatively soon after this sea change, how might we view him today?
As for your comment about my "whiteness showing", I'll simply reply that you are making a hell of an assumption - and in this case an incorrect one. Perhaps a little reflection is in order before so hastily accusing others of "ignorant interpretation"?
"and only renounced the movement in the years before his death"
And a large part of how we "judge" him is him changing his views in the latter part of his life. He is an important person because of his entire life - including the last years. He grew as a person and learned from traveling and experiencing things that challenged his views. If you dismiss that then you dismiss the entire story about Malcolm X.
He grew up in a racist segregated society. Partially by traveling he learned that not all societies are racially segregated and that it is not in the essential "nature" of people to be racists but that racists come from a racist society/structure - and that this can be overcome. If you refuse to acknowledge this lesson and experience the you insist on being stuck in the racially segregated mind-frame.
"only renounced the movement in the years before his death."
Please excuse him for not having the good grace to be psychic & impervious to bullets so he could have renounced them for a time period that would've been more acceptable to you.
Wow, you were shot down pretty fucking directly, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you changed tactics. That's a cowardly move. It's the sort of thing that I think getting to know Malcolm X better would change---he's an inspiring figure of someone who, while fond of incendiary rhetoric (which I appreciate), was thoughtful and willing to rethink a position when presented with new evidence. A good role model, you know.
He was a proponent of the supremacist NOI for the majority of his politically active life, and only renounced the movement in the years before his death.
Who knows - if he hadn't been assassinated relatively soon after this sea change, how might we view him today?
As for your comment about my "whiteness showing", I'll simply reply that you are making a hell of an assumption - and in this case an incorrect one. Perhaps a little reflection is in order before so hastily accusing others of "ignorant interpretation"?
I feel it's unnecessary to get this nasty. I also feel like this discussion is steering towards putting people of different races in strict camps, which is racist in itself. I feel comments like yours are just extremely divisive and hurtful.
Not all white people are against this or that, and saying "whiteness" as a blanket statement is really "us" against "them". Please don't forget that it wasn't only black people in favor of civil rights. If you have a problem with someone's post, address the problem itself instead of lumping all people of one color (which apparently you were incorrect in your assumption of) into one category.
I didn't see anyone in this thread (yet) denying the awful treatment of black people (actually, any people who weren't white and male) since this country's beginning. It's been a brutal, shameful history of oppression, to say the very least.
This post made me learn more about him, which is a good thing. I am eager to see what other people have to say.
Thank you for posting this.
Do you want to call me "angry" as well because I have the nerve to demand that a so called woman friendly space speak about Black leaders. OOOOH the mean black wonen are getting uppity again. Why is it that the minute a woman of color dares to challenge whiteness we are being divisive?
For the record it is not racist to refer to whiteness because only white people have the power and the privilege to act systemically but you would know that if you cared about what POC actually have to live threw. This is nothing but a silencing tactic. If it makes you uncomfortable, the issue is yours not mine. I am not in the habit of sugar coating my words for pearl clutchers.
I find it disgusting that it took this post for you to learn about Malcolm, when every single day POC are forced to learn about whiteness and white history. You get no fucking pat on the back from me. How many other black leaders do you not know about because you have chosen to be purposefully ignorant; this btw is a privilege.
How did I know you were going to use some of these key phrases. Lucky guess, I suppose.
No one fucking called you uppity. I didn't label you "angry" even though you clearly are because you can't have a reasonable discussion w/o going into hyperbolic stereotypes. Some of us do understand that that word (uppity) has racist connotations, and some of us never use it. I was trying to have an open dialogue, and was respectful of you. You can feel however you want, that's within your rights. But don't expect someone to not have a different opinion, especially when your message is packages the way it is.
I didn't say I didn't know ANYTHING about Malcom. And I sure as hell wasn't looking for your approval. You are making yourself look really awful so I will just continue to let you do it. Have fun. I tried to be nice.
*packaged, not "packages".
You weren't trying to have an open conversation you were trying to control my speech and you got told. It is not angry to defend yourself but then you pearl clutchers simply cannot stand to hear the truth. BTW if you knew I was going to use those phrases it is because your original comment was demeaning. Don't start shit and there won't be any.
This has to be a joke. You really like to put words in peoples' mouths. You CLEARLY do not know me or my intentions. Don't go so far as to assume I am trying to control you. That's ridiculous. I am starting to think that you are slightly paranoid (you've accused more than once, people trying to silence and/or control you) and that no rational opposing point will even be worth mentioning because you are incapable of not jumping to conclusions.
Now we have the black woman is crazy meme. God someone hand me a bingo card so that I can start marking off spots.
I know you feel like you're operating in a vaccuum here, but you should be cognizant of the fact that there's a larger...thing...for lack of a better word...that tends to happen in white feminist communities when people of color talk about race, and that "thing" is playing out here like clockwork. Although, from the average white feminist's perspective, it looks like people of color being rude, antagonistic, paranoid, and defensive - even "reverse racist" - in the greater context, this perception is made wonky by (a) privilege and (b) unawareness of the greater online cultural goings-on.
For example, when you asked Renee to be more polite, you probably did so not realizing that the valid protests of people of color are often silenced as white feminists turn their attentions to whether those protests were worded politely or not.
When you suggested the Renee's language is divisive, you probably did so not realizing that when people of color complain about race politics, white feminists often take the focus off the people of color, and instead train it on themselves and the well-being of their movement - despite it being a movement that, clearly, many women of color find problematic and exclusionary. This effectively makes women of color feel that they're supposed to shut up to protect a movement that isn't protecting them. It also distracts attention from the real issue; which is the person of color's complaint.
When you discussed this post in terms of your learning experience about Malcolm X, you probably did so not realizing that many people of color's discussions, celebrations, or struggles become inadvertently hijacked by white feminists who want to be educated about the issue, thus draining the effort, space, and time of women of color, and again siphoning attention away from the issue itself into a discussion geared towards helping white feminists learn, reassuring them of their progress, and preventing them from being alienated - despite how alienating this experience can be for women of color.
You probably also did not realize that many white feminists, when confronted about race issues, tend to respond that they're "just learning", and then proceed to list all of their efforts towards solidarity and their progressive beliefs and willingness to help. This usually implies at least one of two things: (1) that the person of color's protest was personal, rather than political, and therefore could be countered with a personal defense or (2) that the white feminist's willingness to learn and be an ally warrants some gentleness or appreciation - just for doing the bare minimum.
When you suggested that Renee was assuming you were trying to control or silence her, you probably did so without realizing that many women of color are silenced and controlled by white feminists who aren't evil and oppressive - but who are, rather, people with good intentions who don't realize they're being controlling and silencing. As a result, many white feminists accuse women of color of being paranoid, because can't see how they can be offensive or oppressive without intending to. One of the tricks of privilege is that when we're being silencing and controlling, it doesn't feel like that. On the contrary, we feel like we're being utterly reasonable and perfectly logical. Sometimes the only way to learn is to trust people of color when they say we're being stupid.
I know that Renee has been using lots of strong language and that can be off-putting, but in the greater context what you're seeing here is not some angry irrational person, but someone who is frustrated and weary of this kind of argument, and doesn't feel obligated to conceal that sentiment just to make it a more comfortable and affirming experience for white feminists.
White feminists - and I include myself as least half-way in that category - might be very polite and "civil" with each other, but there's a lot of sickness underneath. Women of color should be able to confront, resist, and protest that sickness without being told to manifest the sometimes deceptive layer of politeness hovering on the outside of white feminism.
Wow, I really like you.
that was rad. thanks!
Thank you for treating me like a human being and not resorting to undeserved assumptions about me, or personal attacks/name calling ("pearl clutcher". wtf.)
I agree with a lot of what you say. What I do want to know is..would it be better for me to have not re-read information on Malcom X? If I look it up more, I lose. If I don't, then I am staying ignorant in my white privilege. It's like there's no good answer. What should be the outcome? Isn't it BETTER for all of us if we try to empathize? (even though we will never be able to truly empathize with someone of another race.)
I feel like we NEED to talk about race, privilege, etc. We need to understand one another. This topic is always hard to talk about, there's so much in the past. I just don't see that getting done with this other type of language and assuming. I don't see that happening when someone is jumping all over my ass, putting words in my mouth. It WAS an angry post. Name calling and "your whiteness is showing!" just isn't appropriate. I don't think the anger is unreasonable- I just think it shouldn't have been directed at anyone here in this thread.
Once again, thank you for your input!
"It WAS an angry post. Name calling and "your whiteness is showing!" just isn't appropriate."
Why? Why can't we white women realize what a place of hurt that reply is coming from and deal with that reality instead of getting defensive?
There you go again showing your fucking privilege Nice to know that people area allowed to be angry and express themselves if they do it on your terms. You insist on continually missing the point and you wonder why I call you a pearl clutcher.
I don't mind people of colour being angry with anything I might say that angers them. I'll shut up and I'll listen. It's the least we could damned well do.
Sorry for taking so long to respond, hope you're still reading!
Thank you for treating me like a human being and not resorting to undeserved assumptions about me, or personal attacks/name calling ("pearl clutcher". wtf.)
Hmm. I'd say "you're welcome", but I don't feel that Renee treated you inhumanely. I also don't think the assumptions she came to were undeserved - although you probably had no idea, several things you said happened to fall into a negative pattern of white feminist behavior that women of color have had to deal with time, and time, and time, and time again. More importantly, I don't think she was making personal assumptions about you so much as calling you out on that problematic behavior. I know it's hard, but sometimes you have to resist taking it as a personal attack, and see it instead as a political resistance.
What I want you to realize is that you made some mistakes up there on "how to deal with a woman of color when you're talking about race" (which I basically outlined in my previous comment; things you said unaware of the larger context) and she reacted accordingly. When I say "you made some mistakes", I am not suggesting that you're racist, that you're evil or that you're stupid - just that while it might seem like she was being hostile and unfair, she was having a perfectly legitimate response. I know she wasn't "polite" or "nice" about it, but she's not obligated to be.
Although I know you feel like just you, PamelaVee, a unique individual (which I'm sure you are!) the nature of privilege is that sometimes, without even knowing you're doing it, you'll act more like a textbook demonstration of some women of color's complaints about white feminists. And that can really wear on their inclination to "play nice".
As an example of this, I find that after a few days of talking to 101-level beginner male feminists, I get the same way - I just start feeling like the whole thing is just fucking ridiculous, and it shows in my writing. Generally that's when other commenters tell me I'm clearly "not interested in being civil" or whatever. The problem is that I can see them playing out old, tired tropes of discourse like damn wooden puppets, and it's stupid and hilarious and sad at the same time, but they can't see it. They can't see that their comments are part of a privilege machine.
It's like there's no good answer. What should be the outcome?
I just want to say that I empathize with the struggle many white feminists have (having had it myself!) of feeling like nothing they do is right, that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I think that whenever you're in a privileged position and you're trying to figure out what the right thing to do is, it's crucial to do some hardcore self-education on how marginalized people feel about the issue. Read their comments, read their blogs, ask very open-ended, non-loaded questions (like "How do you feel about Malcolm X?" not "Aren't you advocating violence?")...it's really a bad time to do "trial or error"; you'll end up pissing someone off. Listen, listen, listen.
I feel like we NEED to talk about race, privilege, etc. We need to understand one another. This topic is always hard to talk about, there's so much in the past. I just don't see that getting done with this other type of language and assuming. I don't see that happening when someone is jumping all over my ass, putting words in my mouth.
First, it's important to note that for the most part, women of color don't need white feminists. God knows they've made it this far without much of an alliance with white feminists. Although white feminists tend to think in terms of numbers - "you're a minority and therefore you need us" - some women of color activists have found that it's actually more fruitful for their cause to ignore white feminists and stick with the allies they already have, than to try to recruit and educate non-allied white feminists.
Second, you can have amazing discussions about race - but sometimes you can only be ready for that when you've really been silent for awhile and listened a lot. If you'd like to see some great examples of these discussions, there's a WOC blogger and white blogger who are having an amazing series called "Rethinking Walking" that I strongly recommend reading:
http://flipfloppingjoy.com/category/rethinking-walking/
It WAS an angry post. Name calling and "your whiteness is showing!" just isn't appropriate.
You know, I think white feminists often perceive women of color as being mad, when they're actually amused, frustrated, sad, or simply making a point or protest. We tend to jump right to the assumption of "anger" because it feels like we're being attacked; actually, we're usually just being corrected and it's our sensitivity and defensiveness that makes us feel like we're getting raged at. Especially because many WOC don't feel obligated to coat their protests in deceptive politeness. Consider that when a WOC is getting angry, it might be anger at a greater system at work - like those "Friday Feminism Fuck you!" posts - and not just random personal anger at you.
Anyway, if you take this sort of reaction as a personal affront instead of a correction, you'll prevent yourself from getting anywhere because you'll be too busy stewing and defending and not enough time introspecting and self-critiquing.
Also, you've got to throw out your ideas of what's "appropriate" for WOC responses.
I don't think the anger is unreasonable- I just think it shouldn't have been directed at anyone here in this thread.
Hmm, I think that's a problem. You believe it's okay for Renee to get angry, so long as it's a sort of general, directionless (i.e., non-threatening) anger. Unfortunately, if you make a mistake, they might address you directly, and they might very well be mad.
Again, try to not take it personally. Take it politically.
Wow! That was amazing-- thanks so much for posting that, you rock.
"pearl clutchers" is a sexist, racist slur.
I'm pretty sure that is in violation of the comments policy.
Since when do WOC have the power and privielge of being racist against white people? Please let me know cause I have been waiting for ever and day to be able to walk around like my body is worth is something in this world.
You aren't responding to the issue here, which is that the term you used is a personal attack with negative sexist and racial connotations to boot. And you used it TWICE.
Language is defined by those who use it, so yes, depending on which definition of racism you use, you're right, people of color can't be racist against white people since they do not have systemic power and privilege--they can only be racially prejudiced. So let me correct my statement:
"Pearl clutchers" is a sexist and racially prejudicial slur. Which is in violation of the comments policy here. If you disagree, please take issue with that.
I completely agree with you regarding the substantive issue on this thread--that Malcolm X's legacy deserves to be known to ALL in its rich complexity--and myself am angry at the privilege blind characterizations being made at WOC, supporters of Malcolm X, and you in particular. I have said so elsewhere in this thread.
But referring to your opposition and the readers of this blog as "you pearl clutchers"--a term that not only is a personal character attack but also has racial and sexist connotations--not once but TWICE is in clear violation of the comments policy and antithetical to the intellectual goals of this blog. I would be remiss not to object and report this as abuse.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
I am pretty sure this thread has a fair amount of the 2nd and 3rd definition. Privilege or none. There are racists of all races.
I think it is tricky the way things become legible online. If an opinion is stated aggressively, it seems nasty because it might be subject matter that you are not familiar with. I see this happen over and over and when you compound that with racist stereotypes of women of color and more specifically black women, you don't even have to say it, it is already said.
Renee is responding to a really common stereotype about Malcolm X that he preached racial hatred and suggested the emancipation of one group over another. A) given the historical time that he was operating, his teachings made sense and B) as many people have said over and over, he renounced much of what he said in his earlier years. It is his story we remember and as Norbizness said, how much impact he made even through his mistakes. Malcolm was not a perfect man, but he was honest.
It frustrates me when we forget history. If we are all part of a social movement for the equitable treatment of all humans, we cannot forget that only 40 years ago that the US was segregated along colorlines. And that segregation continues today through backwards economic policy, the prison industrial complex, the police state and has even expanded to include "illegals" and others that are considered "alien" to the state.
It is hard not to get very defensive and sensitive in discussing someone that represents so much to those of us that did not have the privilege of being the dominant culture and determining the way a lot of these things played out. Have a little compassion folks and recognize the way privilege plays out, even if in these minute ways like blog threads. We need to believe in the teachings and legacy of Malcolm to continue to move our social movements forward, as complicated as that may be to understand, recognize that it doesn't come from a place of hatred, but compassion for ourselves and our communities.
Have a little compassion folks and recognize the way privilege plays out
That should be the motto of this site.
I didn't label you "angry" even though you clearly are
And this perspective clearly showed even though you didn't use the word in your initial post.
Get a clue.
Everyone in this thread is angry! She's (I am assuming she, correct me if I am wrong) placing phrases like "angry black woman" and "uppity" in our mouths and that shit's not cool.
It's what she sees in your writing, and I see it too, and clearly even you do, as the "I didn't call you angry but you obviously ARE" post attests. We're in the privileged position, why can we not deal with her anger constructively instead of acting as though it's so unreasonable and unjustified?
maybe you should quote me with the entire sentence AND in the context that she was clearly baiting and begging for me to say "angry"? She specifically asked because she knows it has racist connotations. I mentioned she was angry because I've never seen a more confrontational jump-to-stereotyped-conclusions text on these boards, ever, in any post that I've read.
I am angry because people are saying what she said isn't racist and that to be offended by it, that I am. No one here said there's not privilege. And yes, there are things that I do not see because of it. Where do we go from here?
I quoted it in it's entirety already, do you need reminding of your own words only two posts later?
And why is it that you have appointed yourself spokesperson for every POC? Speak for yourself, not for all of us.
The amount of ignorance on Malcolm is something I'd would have expected from Limbaugh or O'Reiley. Depressing to find it with such vigor here.
Why do you assume that anyone who criticises his ideas at all must be white? He may be a hero for you but he is not for everyone, including WOC.
What you call hatred Blacks call righteous indignation. Why should not carry anger when white people destroyed his family, murdered his father, undereducated him and then imprisoned him. When you face that kind of virulent racism then you can sit in judgment.
More unfounded supposition about who I am and what prejudice I and my family have experienced?
There is no question that Malcom X and his family were treated abominably by the system, although some of the points you make are contentious. For example, it's true that he was imprisoned by white people, but it is undeniable that he was also guilty of committing criminal offences. Should we completely exonerate him because his circumstances maybe drove him to commit crime, or because as a black man his prison sentence was probably disproportionate? Not everything is half so straightforward as you seem to believe.
Personally, I don't believe that only the most victimised have the right to an opinion. As feminists we have fought long and hard for the right to judge and to form our own opinions. Should we have given up that right the moment that women were no longer at the very bottom of the social pecking order? Who are you to tell me what I can and can't form an opinion on?
As a pacifist I don't think that the answer to years of blood and slavery is to call for yet more years of blood and slavery with a different set of victims. According to your moral logic, after enough years of enslavement and repression, people x would then be morally entitled to enslave people y, and then the other way around again after that....
"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind" - Gandhi.
Do you even know what Malcolm was doing before running numbers and breaking into houses? He was working on a train saying yes sir no sir and demeaning himself every damn day for whiteness. Malcolm graduated from junior high at the top of his class but when he told his teacher he wanted to be a lawyer they told him to choose a job more suited to a nergro. Then you want to blame him for subverting the system to try to earn a living in a way in which he did not have to scrape and bend to a white man. How very generous of you.
He was arrested and thrown in jail for a property crime (in which no one got hurt) for which he got ten years. Ten year for a b&e...yeah we all know that his major crime was fucking a white woman. The white man had to protect his pride. This is by the way something that Jack Johnson was very familiar with. Black men have spent a lot of time either in jail or at the end of a rope for the sake of a white woman.
Oh, so let's blame white women, right?
You know what, I'll say it right now, you are angry. You are so angry that you can't even think straight. So many white women respect you, read your blog and learn from you, yet you distrust them. They are trying to rise above racism, confront their privileges, but you only see their shortcomings. White women are not your enemy, Renee. But I'm starting to believe that's the only way you want to view them.
Really? I mean, I disagree a lot with Renee's methods and ad hominem attacks here, but your characterization is unfair. Expecting WOC to trust white women because they are linked by feminism--and then calling them angry when they don't--is pretty privilege blind.
You want me to trust when day after day I get to watch the erasure and outright racism in the feminist sphere. If you read my blog, you know I don't play mammy. If I make you uncomfortable it's because you're not going to get a free ride with me period. Oh and calling me angry is a sign of your discomfort and prejudice. I will tell you this point blank, anger does not hurt me when I consider the crimes that whiteness has committed and continues to commit against my people. Why the fuck shouldn't I be angry? Anger is a legitimate emotion just like sadness, or happiness. The only reason anger is even viewed as an insult is because it is an emotion that is deemed unfeminine. Good girls sit quietly and never complain. So thanks again for showing your true colors and when I decide to give a fuck about what you think I'll let you know. How about them apples?
This comment has been deleted.
Oh piss off, if you "respect" and "read" Renee so much you'll know why there is suspicion there but you'll also know that she featured white women on her blog, a space she most assiduously defends as her own. She wouldn't invite us to share even that intimate of a space with her if she viewed us as the enemy, give me a break.
So I suppose that unless everyone agrees that MX was an amazing human his entire life without examining the events that shaped him or his legacy, we're all historically ignorant racists bent on erasing or contorting his memory? Super. We're all fucked and this thread is over.
Actually I want you to stop judging him outside of history and view him like everyone else as an imperfect being. You can practically deify MLK (note pre 1963) because he makes you comfortable but Malcolm is a complex man and not as easily reducible. The assumption and ignorance on this thread speak to the fact that many siting in judgment have only internalized what the racist media has had to say about him and not interacted with blacks to find our opinion. Ossie Davis called him our shining black prince for a reason. He is wonderful because he is imperfect. He is wonderful because he strove to improve the lives of blacks at a time when it took true courage to do so. I don't see Malcolm as a deity but as an imperfect man whose legacy is not only important but inspiring for its ability to teach us all about possibilities.
But instead of instructing the uninformed on the complexities of the man, you've instead chosen to attack and minimalize the opinions of other posters. It would make more sense to talk about the problematic nature of Islam's treatment of women (as that seems to the an issue of focus with MX on a feminist website) and his subsequent attempts to change himself and his followers, rather than get on a soapbox and tell everyone who questions his earlier motivations they're "pearl clutchers" and privileged racists. That gets no one anywhere and makes people insensible to your argument.
Thanks for telling me how to frame my argument cause now that I's been properly told how to speak I won't make that mistake again. I's awful grateful you took the time missues.
Get a fucking clue. Seriously Malcolm X was the son of a black woman and the father to 4, that's right, count them 4 daughters; all of who did well in their lives and spoke highly of him. I need not turn the conversation to what you deem important for it to be relevant. Feminism is about all aspects of womanhood and in case you fail to recognize this, our husbands, sons, fathers, brothers, etc., are very Germain to our lives. How do you think his daughters felt when they saw their father murdered before their very eyes? How did Betty feel as his blood poured over her clothes and she knew in that moment she would have to raise her children alone. Black women were affected by his death just like we are always affected when the men in our lives our mowed down. What happens to our men is a feminist issue and that is something white feminists have failed to acknowledge forever.
"It would make more sense to talk about the problematic nature of Islam's treatment of women (as that seems to the an issue of focus with MX on a feminist website)"
i hope in what you say that you are referring to how certain countries have abused the teachings of islam and not about islam itself as you would be proving a point a few posters have said on here about how western white patriarchal society coats anything that disagrees with its beliefs as evil and bad and a threat. just how its has Malcolm X. i remember in my high school when we were told to do projects on famous people who changed history before anyone asked out teacher said we could not cover malcolm x because he started violence, but it was also hinted because he was a muslim and our RE teacher only wanted us covering christians. i feel really stupid for believeing it too! but as a young kid i relied on my teachers for telling me the truth-now i'm an adult i understand that history thats taught is not completely truthful and tends to be very objectional. you wonder who's history your being taught.
OMG, nice work you're doing, collapsing all criminal behavior into one thing. Especially with numbers-running. What? You've never gambled? Think before you comment, for fuck's sake.
Then be glad, because Malcolm was fighting against that idea.
His autobiography is definitely one of the best reads of all time, but his is definitely the story of untapped potential, as he himself thought he was a mindless parrot for the reprehensible Elijah Mohammed from the time he entered the NOI to about one year before his year. The fact that he planted so many seeds in just a short time and inspired so many people really speaks to the power of his ideas once he started thinking for himself.
Agreed!
Malcolm X was such a big inspiration for me growing up and becoming interested in social justice.
I think he is a conflicting figure for many reasons. He scared the shit out of the white capitalist power structure, so they demonize him and his legacy today. He advocated that oppressed people have a right to defend themselves! Which is so right on!
His work in the NOI was black nationalist which there are problems with, but that is not his entire legacy and I believe he moved further from that as he progressed as an activist.
I read a book once that referred to him as "the ultimate black patriarch" which is apt. His machismo was quite a bit of a hinderance to connecting men and women in true unity, but I believe that before he died, he was working himself, to really bridge those gaps.
He's inspired me, against pacifism, against injustice everywhere, and that's what his legacy means to me.
Reading "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" in my teens had a huge impact on me. At that time, my consciousness of privilege was still pretty simplistic - that idea that everybody can get along because we're all the same. (**GROUP HUG!**) Reading about Malcolm X's life brought home to me for the first time that, no, we're NOT all the same. As long as our society prescribes different treatments for people based on their skin color, gender identity, class, etc., we are going to be different. The solution isn't to bury your head in the sand and pretend that privileged categories don't exist - it's to recognize with respect that others have had sometimes radically different life experiences. As a white girl in a rural Southern town who thought of myself as pretty enlightened, it was humbling - probably the first time my intellect truly had been challenged.
"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind" - Gandhi.
And Gandhi couldn't stop British India from being split into three separate nations.
Racism = prejudice + power, and who has the power in this society?
I'm sick of this meme that occurs in feminist spaces and elsewhere that asserts that every time a Black woman expresses an opinion that runs counter to vanilla groupthink, we're 'angry' or 'racist'
The facts are that racism has been in effect in North America and elsewhere longer than the United States has been a nation.
"I'm sick of this meme that occurs in feminist spaces and elsewhere that asserts that every time a Black woman expresses an opinion that runs counter to vanilla groupthink, we're 'angry' or 'racist'"
I'm not sure how on an anonymous thread anyone is to know who's black and who's a woman. Ironic how you throw in "vanilla" while decrying racism. Or was that meant to reference the mainstream?
Why is it that you think that when some bloggers recently called for a boycott of feministing they mentioned racism as well as transphobia? I for one did not agree with a boycott because I'll be dammed if I let you have an echo chamber of assent even though it comes at a personal cost to myself.
I'm openly posting here and I'm not white. You're openly posting here and you're not white. Who knows what the racial demographic is behind these pseudonyms? I'm fairly certain you were the first to attack Samhita's OP and the majority of americans are white or some mix thereof, so it makes sense that a lot of the readers of feministing are white. Shall I go on poking holes in this argument of yours or do you want to continue making gross generalizations about everyone and everything?
I didn't attack Samhita, I simply pointed out that once again, a feminist site was slow to post about an important issue to blacks. Frankly you claim to be of color and that may well be true, however it is of the same variety of the log cabin Republicans. There is a reason why despite the bloggers of color this blog is considered a white feminist blog. I am not the first to make this determination either. Between the comment section which is usually hostile to WOC and the erasure or the "quick hit" treatment in the posts the label is well earned.
I'm openly posting here and I'm not white. You're openly posting here and you're not white. Who knows what the racial demographic is behind these pseudonyms? I'm fairly certain you were the first to attack Samhita's OP and the majority of americans are white or some mix thereof, so it makes sense that a lot of the readers of feministing are white. Shall I go on poking holes in this argument of yours or do you want to continue making gross generalizations about everyone and everything?
Um...there are demographic statistics for Feministing. It's 81% Caucasian (which is actually slightly whiter than the average online audience), 58% female-identified, 77% 18-49 years old, and 35% of us make a six-figure income.
You can check Quantcast's profile if you want to verify this.
So it's pretty fair to say most Feministing readers come from a pretty race, cis, and class privileged background.
And how many people did this site poll for their stats? I can't find a single digit.
I'm especially skeptical of the claim that well over a third of feministing readers make over $100,000 a year. That would be an extraordinary statistic for nearly any blog, website or media outlet.
They don't "poll" individual sites; they conduct a census of millions of users and get supporting information from ISPs. If you want to know their methodology, check the site.
But you've got to be fucking kidding me if you think this site isn't predominantly white.
Hey Sherlock, did you not read my earlier comment?
"...the majority of americans are white or some mix thereof, so it makes sense that a lot of the readers of feministing are white."
Just a note on Quantcast: we don't have their code on our site, so their stats on are actually not accurate at all. For example, they say we have about 90k visitors a month when we have 500k.
My bad!
I don't suppose you do have any stats on the racial breakdown here?
No worries! They don't really make it clear on the site that that's the case for sites who don't sign up for their code.
We don't have demographic info for the site, unfortunately...though it's definitely something I'll bring up in our Feministing retreat next week since it seems like it's something people are interested in!
Six figures! Holy crap! That is a lot of freaking money!
India, Pakistan. Two nations. And it wasn't the British who split India into 2 nations, it was Jinnah.
Elijah Muhammad's NOI taught that white society actively worked to keep African-Americans from empowering themselves and achieving political, economic and social success.
Hmmm...so how is that racist in the context of the American society of the 30s-40s-50s and come to think of it 21st century America as well?
One of the things Malcolm X helped bring into the national consciousness, even when he was with NOI, is that African Americans should not internalize racism. I think that what attracted people to him was how well he articulated that idea. That sounds kind of feminist to me in that both racism and sexism encourage a form of self-hatred. I am not saying that they are the same. They do have this in common.
I just read a book about the activists in the late 60s who pretty much fueled what we now call second wave feminism. Funny thing is that none of them were perfect and they had some pretty far-fetched ideas about segregating from men. It's understandable (if you know the history) why those women needed to develop their own consciousness and why Malcolm developed.
Change is messy. People make mistakes. But I know that Malcolm X made the world a better place.
BTW, he didn't advocate violence. He advocated self-defense.
Oops. I meant "why Malcolm developed his." Sorry.
i don't know very much about Malcolm X. to be honest, i think i know nothing.
i think this is very indicative of white privilge in the sense that i didn't learn about him in school. The history books and teachers focused on the white dudes. not even a white woman.
i myself am mixed race; half vietnamese and half african american.
why didn't my parents teach me my heritage? cause i didn't have any. i grew up in foster care with white people. think they taught me x?
its not their fault; they honestly just don't know. and why should they? are they expected to know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE?
seriously, i have yet to meet one WOC who has ever been able to tell me anything about my vietnamese culture without quick looking it up and pretending they knew. so its certainly not a "whiteness" problem. hardly. even WOC are prone to being culture-centric.
While I definitely agree with you that people, all people, tend to know mostly about what effects themselves, I do have to say that I think whiteness, as a social structure, practices an erasure of the cultures of all groups of people of color. And in so doing, and because it is the dominant social structure, it formulates these boxes of identity which cause rifts in understanding between people of color of different ethnicities.
And the biggest thing is, institutions aligned with the structure of whiteness have the choice of what they can include in their knowledge base. You know? We can study Black history or Vietnamese history or Native history, if we want, but on the flipside we can ignore all of them if we want too. And that's the main problem the discussion here is revolving around, to me, and also a big contributing factor to what you've observed in your own life as well.
whatsername:
very well put, thank you. i don't tend to say what i mean, the words just never come right.
i enjoyed your point of view.
Malcolm X isn't just part of black American history and culture. He's also part of white American history. He had an incredible and formative impact on white Americans. So when white Americans don't know anything about him, they aren't just failing to know other people's history. They are failing to know their own.
ghostorchid:
thats a wonderful way to think of it--and unfortunately, i was never taught that history.
so it is now my responsibilty to learn the truth.
But not everyone is American either, nor is everyone able to go to a good enough school for long enough to learn that much history.
A library card is free. There are paths towards education outside of Academia if one has a true desire to learn. One of the things that amazed my immigrant parents when they came to North America was the public library system. They taught us, their children to recognize what a resource it is and to this day my children and I make weekly trips to pick out our reading material.
People who are that poor are too busy working to spend hours in a library reading. Free time is the privilege of the rich.
Spare time is a priveledge but self-education is an absolute neccesity. Huey P. Newton made time to educate hisself after the scool system failed him and Fred Hampton hosted a political education course for black peopl at 6am, one to which people showed up. Yeah it's tough, but working can not be used as a reason for not self-educating. Even if it's only twenty minutes a night three times a week. Yeah it's hard, but it is absolutely necessary that black people become educated on our history and the system that oppresses us.
Really so the time my poor immigrant parents spent in libraries getting books to educate themselves was just something I imagined. Wow a life long delusion. All the people I see of lower economic status in my library are a figment of my imagination as well.. Good to know, perhaps I should tell my doctor I have spent a lifetime having visions.
I am inspired to read more about Malcolm X. I am from Australia, though, and a lot of the focus I had in school was on our own Indigenous people. I just hadn't got to learning about the struggle of African Americans. I guess I feel hopeless cause being in another country, there's not a lot I can do. I can vote and write letters and make some noise here in Australia about the Indigenous Australians. But I care about you guys too.
One more thing on the "but he was a criminal!" bullshit. I have to wonder if the people saying this are offended when someone says it discredits feminism if the bloggers at Jezebel get drunk and have sex with some dude. Probably, I'd think. It's obvious how stupid that criticism is. But when it comes to a black man, all of a sudden, we're singing in a different key?
It boggles my mind. Malcolm's home was burned down by the KKK when he was a child. His father was murdered when he was six. He as many blacks was in constant peril of the worst type of terrorism--domestic terrorism.Sometimes with a badge. With no rights, or protection of the law. If he was a bad guy then I guess the Native Americans who stood up for themselves were also. Does anyone know about the era or times? American history outside of Washington never told a lie? About Black Wall Street? About the Ochee massacre? Rosewood? Scottsborro Boys ? You look at his life, his intellect, his journey, this man is the definition of a hero and a man.
Wow. The privilege burns. I agree with the other poster about being a Southern white girl who thought she was SOOOOOOO enlightened until I stared learning about Mr. El-Shabazz/Malcolm X. His speeches and writings schooled my white butt.
Let me just echo: His advocation of total separation from whites was so that blacks could protect themselves from the physical, psychological, and social terrorism of a white supremacist system. I have always found that VERY reasonable considering the circumstances. I use my feminism to understand that perspective.
Further, I use my feminism to understand Renee's anger. It's not my job to make men more comfortable about their male privilege. In the face of the terrorism of patriarchy, I'm not going to give them an "A" for effort on something that their ass SHOULD be doing. Sorry, boys, no cookies for you. You'll just have to settle for a better world.
Renee doesn't have to play nice-nice in the face of the terrorism of racism. It's not her job to pat me on the head or make me more comfortable about what I SHOULD be doing anyway. Sorry white people, no cookies for us. We'll just have to settle for a better world.
So much yes!
you say this:
"His advocation of total separation from whites was so that blacks could protect themselves from the physical, psychological, and social terrorism of a white supremacist system. I have always found that VERY reasonable considering the circumstances. I use my feminism to understand that perspective."
thank you so much for that very clear explanation. the words in my head dont seem to look the same way yours do.
today a white lady said to her friend in passing, "that colored girl has her manners. they mostly don't have manners, you see"
the south ...its thick down here.
Not sure if this is relevant to the immediate discussion in the comments but what inspires me about Malcolm X the most was the fact that his views *did* evolve tremendously through his life and he had the honesty, consistency and courage to reevaluate his views. I think there were a lot of problems with the view he was espousing on behalf of Elijah Muhammad, even taking into account the historical context.
However from what I know of him (which is just his autobiography, Spike Lee's film and one other book), even during his NOI time there was something about him that made him great. Still, if he stayed with the NOI his whole life I don't think he'd have had quite the same impact decades later.
In any case, disagreeing with a particular view he held at a particular time does not say much at all about the entire impact he has made. And with him, more than with most, it is the fact that he was a flawed human being that makes him so interesting, inspiring and influential.
You know, this thread has passed the point of anything I have ever been trained to deal with (I think this is clear from most of my comments threads, haha). All I ask is that we use compassion when talking to each other and recognize that we all carry our own trauma and baggage and to try in some way to leave that to the side when talking about the late Malcolm X.
It is only through kindness, understanding and compassion we can possibly understand each other and if we can't do that, then we should step away until a time that we can.
I have to say from where I stand, I don't care who here is or isn't racist. If I cared about that, I would have stopped blogging a long time ago. What I am more interested in is what can we do to make this a productive conversation where everyone learns something? Is that even possible? Should whites talk amongst themselves, POC themselves? You may laugh but that is a very common practice in non-profits because the pain, grief and ignorance that comes out of uncovering racism stings those who you want to "help."
One of the key ways I have survived this long writing in hostile environments has been because I focus on structural racism, as opposed to interpersonal. It is not my job to figure out if you are a racist and help you be less racist. It is my job to write from the margins to the best I know, give voices to the stories I know best, bring light to the organizing efforts. The first 8000 times you may not even realizing it is changing, but over time it will. And it will change and impact feminism.
Step back, take a deep breath, think, is this the conversation that needs to be happening in order to open our minds to better dialogue around race.
At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna, I feel like I really have learned a lot from this thread, in a very positive way.
everyone's been real nice to me when i've posted.
and i've learned alot.
more importantly, i've been inspired to learn more.
what hositility?
After reading this post and thread, I've learned a lot about Malcolm X and will try to read his autobiography. I, too, was given the history of privileged white men and was mystified into thinking Malcolm X was violent and racist. I now understand his impact in American History and how his voice inspired empowerment to the black community. I will continue to shut up and listen and educate myself.