Another way to put it: Malcolm X was authentic in everything he did, and that was something this country needed.
He was able to articulate more clearly than anyone else the implications of being black in America: that the only way to succeed in any way was by trying to act white.
Thanks in large part to his activism, that is far less true today.
You're comparing 1960s America to colonial (and later) America. It's certainly possible that the damage done later on was greater, as there was a greater disbursement of knowledge, media, and information during a time in which the country was known as the land of opportunity, the melting pot.
A speech calling for violence in the time of newspapers and television is surely more damaging than that same speech given in an auditorium in the early 1800s to a select group..
I am not attempting to put a 'value' on the whole of slave trade, that's impossible. I'd merely like to point out the 'apples vs. oranges' nature of your comparison.
People give such speeches today in mainstream right-wing rallies and are not criticized for it at all, let alone as harshly as Malcolm X is criticized. That's apples to apples since it's still the time of newspapers and television.
In the context of the previous two comments, it was stated that present-day mainstream right-wing speeches call for violence. If so, I must have missed it. I did not intend for my statement to reflect on the actions of Malcolm X.
It worked for King, it worked for Ghandi. Do you really think there could have been something like the civil rights laws -- born primarily of white people -- if the primary black person had been X and not King?
It is patently absurd to give MLK's non-violent movement 100% of the credit for civil rights reform. The political situation during that time was unbelievably complex, and the changing attitudes of a turbulent nation cannot be so simply explained.
Yet it was Ghandi himself who, when asked if his peaceful tactics would have worked against Hitler, said, "probably not."
I'm not suggesting that white people are literally Hitler, but simply that there's a time and place for everything, including peace and violence. And I say that as someone who has never called for violence on anything ever.
Agreed, Malcolm X is one of the most fascinating individuals in recent history. The movie based on his autobiography is also quite good: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104797/
That's the understatement of the year! I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it but I don't remember ever feeling as attached to a character except maybe in Shawshank.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. Despite being 3+ hours, There isn't a single boring moment and Spike Lee and Denzel do a superb job at showing the transformation of Malcolm X. Now I have to go check out the autobiography.
Agreed, mainly because the period is so alien to many sub-40s Americans today. Also resonant: Islam, race, ugly American politics. It's an easy read, written by Alex Haley, who also wrote Roots. (Don't read the book (Roots) if you can find the more culturally significant mini-series. LeVar Burton was an icon in the US in the late 70s, well before he boarded the Enterprise.) The Spike Lee movie on Maclolm X is interesting, but a significantly different experience than reading the book.
I actually disagree that you shouldn't read "Roots." I just finished it myself, and it's about as close as you can get to experiencing what it would be like to be taken away from your home in chains.
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.
> 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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
As one who is serious about web apps, I have some different feedback for you.
I would pay at least $300 for the interviews alone.
While there are clearly improvements that could be made to the sales page, they are all tactical. I think your strategy is spot-on, and I think you've compiled a package of incredible value.
Thank you for putting this all together in such a well-designed way! Clearly if one values their time, this investment is far more productive than sifting through "hundreds of blog posts."
> For the price of the book alone ($29), I could watch 100+ hours of tutorials on a site like Lynda or Tuts+ from a variety of developers with similar experience. I'm having a hard time verifying that the value of the resources matches the price tag.
Dude. Do you realize that you are valuing your time at approximately 25 cents per hour? I suspect you have other, deeper reasons for not investing such a small amount of money in something that, by the way, comes with a full guarantee.
For other busy people, it's also worth pointing out that the schedule is very slow and focused on understanding. For instance, we are taking the introduction one section per day. The guy running it at Reddit created a nice Google calendar for the "course." Needless to say I am psyched for this.
Expand your thinking in the abstract about what a database is. As 71104 mentions, a file system is also a database. What you are thinking of as "a database" is really a specific type of key-value store that is located on disk. But the fact most DBs are on disk has nothing to do with the concept itself.
