>Writing books is certainly useful but I still think there's
>too much attention paid to the *men* vs their
>ideals/philosophies/movements. Not nearly enough books that
>are written about them that are willing to challenge these men
>on their views, shortcomings etc. That would in effect run the
>risk of shattering the romanticism that we have fostered about
>them.

I think knowing more about the man is a better way to understand his ideals, at the very least how he came to such ideals. How could a philanderer stress the importance of family? How could a black Christian man, three particular groups not terribly supportive of gays, support gay rights? Insight into the man will shed light on how he came to this ideal.

>Not many critical viewpoints from authors/scholars you come
>across that really challenge the perspective of King or X.

That's not entirely true. Many of MLK's faults are very poorly addressed until the last 10 years. And as for scholarly work regarding X, there really isn't a great of scholarly work on him - not when you consider that the foremost piece of literature on him is written the man in question. Couple that with the amount of "viewpoints" but not necessarily "critical" or "scholarly" and it's not much of a surprise that there's been little challenge in regards to his perspective.

>at the risk of sounding arrogant, King nor X were what I would
>term original thinkers. King perhaps more so than X. When I
>read Malcolm's speeches now, they don't resonate with me like
>they once did when I too was a "Malcolmite" in my early 20s.

Having never been a Malcolmite, I can't really speak on how well it does or doesn't resonate. As for being ahead or behind the curve, I think Malcolm's aggression garnered him a larger audience as time has gone on.

>Malcolm NEVER wrote one book in his life.

You mean, other than his autobiography? You mean, other than telling the book to an author and having that author edit it down? Because that counts as writing a book. That's why it's called the AUTObiography.

>This is precisely
>why I regard X as strictly a man of his time and NOT ahead of
>it. And his lack of scholarship, is why I don't see the need
>for all the attention paid to X. I know that may offend some
>of you but I highly doubt that you can tell me that I'm
>wrong.

You know X did that MLK didn't do? Malcolm traveled the world. Malcolm spoke to world leaders. Malcolm took the issues of America and put it on a global platform. Malcolm literally brought the problem to the rest of the world. Fuck a book.

>1st of all, no need for a moratorium deciding on who someone
>can or can't write about. If a person feels the need to write
>another book on King and X then so be it. But my opinion still
>stands. Why the need to concentrate so much material on these
>two individuals when the objective should be to educate people
>about as many great people as possible so that it doesn't seem
>like only a few extraordinary people made contributions. When
>we make it a point to highlight different individuals in our
>history, then young ppl especially, see that these are but
>men, people and whatever is it they did they can attain also.

I can't speak for all young people (and lord knows I don't want to), but I really don't think young people think it was only the contributions of a few individuals.
Kobe didn't win that championship by himself.
He had a team.
Everybody knows that.
I'd be more worried about how dumb a young person would have to be to think such a thing were possible.

>See, I think we're getting too far off the subject here. The
>book industry is hurting now more than ever before...so it
>only stands to reason that writers who make their living as
>scribes would write about popular topics in order to maintain
>their livelihood. But I hold scholars to a different standard
>than I do other writers.

1. The book industry is far from hurting. The book industry has conintually grown and made more every year, despite whatever preconceptions there may be people, reading, and the internet. Shit, they just released a major study showing people between the ages of 18-30 read more books now than they did ten years ago.
2. A majority of scholars get paid by book companies for their research. I can't speak specifically on whether this is the case for Mr. Marable (though I suspect it is), but most scholars get paid for the work they do through the company that's going to release a book on said research.
So if a cat's gonna spend his time researching a topic like X, especially considering the amount of time Marable has spent, best believe it's worth it. The "there's too many X books on the shelf already", or "we should write books about other cats" shouldn't preclude anyone, much less someone of Marable's stature, from writing a book on X.

>But seriously, fam, why would Malcolm be considered necessary
>reading in high school anyway? Please explain?...

You had mentioned how bad the school system does with black history, how they refuse to acknowledge anyone other than MLK and X. Most schools don't acknowledge X during black history. Try to get the nation's school boards to approve a chapter on a man who said the things X said.
I personally think it's important because his side of the issue is rarely addressed. The anger of the issue, the anger of oppression, is never addressed in school. I remember someone asking every year in school "So wait, you mean they got hit with hoses and just sang? They ain't even hit 'em? None of them hit not one of them?"



"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams