http://www.amazon.com/Malcolm-X-Reinvention-Manning-Marable/dp/0670022209/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276529598&sr=1-6

Shiiiittt... I've waiting for this book to come out ever since I read this http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/21/manning_marable_on_malcolm_x_a

I don't mean to ride Manning's dick or anything.. It's not as if Malcolm jumped out of his coffin and wrote us some new shit... But Manning is probably one of the most knowledgeable men on Malcolm X alive. Imma cop the book as soon as it comes out!

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

Honestly for me at this point, there's nothing new to learn about El Hajj Malik Shabazz. I, as well as most ppl, (I think) know his life story from beginning to end, from his days of hustlin on the streets to doing time in the pen; we know of his involvement and consequent departure from the NOI; Most ppl know of the Government conspiracy theories.

This is one of the things that sort of irritates me the most about how we latch onto blk historical figures as if there's not other worthy leaders/people whose life stories need to be put on a big screen.

We've heard, read and saw pretty much all there is when it comes to people like Malik Shabazz and/or MLK. How about someone do a movie on the life of Frederick Douglass or Paul Robeson.

grassrootsphilosopher

>Honestly for me at this point, there's nothing new to learn
>about El Hajj Malik Shabazz. I, as well as most ppl, (I think)
>know his life story from beginning to end, from his days of
>hustlin on the streets to doing time in the pen; we know of
>his involvement and consequent departure from the NOI; Most
>ppl know of the Government conspiracy theories.

You actually don't know shit about his life. 99% of what
you know is stuff that *he* told Alex Haley. And though
he's an earnest as they come(it appears), there's thousands
of details that he left out, didn't have time to cover,
didn't feel like covering, and couldn't cover because he
didn't know.

Such is the power of biography -- sometimes the best biographies
divulge what was going on around the individual, details that
the he/she could not have seen, had no perspective on, etc.

Heck, half of 'Bearing the Cross' isn't about MLK specifically,
but about the setting, the ambiance, the mood, etc. It what
makes it amazing.


>This is one of the things that sort of irritates me the most
>about how we latch onto blk historical figures as if there's
>not other worthy leaders/people whose life stories need to be
>put on a big screen.

Uh. White people are still writing biographies about
John Wayne, and Abraham Lincoln. That's not specific, at all,
to black people.

And I'd argue the exact opposite: Malcom X's legacy is
begging for a different, fresh take by a pre-eminent
scholar like Marable, because the Autobiography, as outstanding
as it is, has monopolized the opinion on Malcom, which is
never healthy. The odds are there were phenomenon and details
that we have no idea about.

Another problem with Malcom's legacy is that he's almost
seen as mythical. His transformations come across as magical
and holy, which is the point he wanted to put across (as a
Muslim), but I'd be willing to bet there's different ways to
look at the multiple transformations.

I've even said that his story isn't particularly easy to
identify with because of how its painted...he almost seems
like a superhero. Its one of the reasons I've always said
that I was personally touched more by 'Soledad Brother' than
I was by 'Autobiography of Malcom X'.


>We've heard, read and saw pretty much all there is when it
>comes to people like Malik Shabazz and/or MLK. How about
>someone do a movie on the life of Frederick Douglass or Paul
>Robeson.

We're not talking about movies, but even if we were, that
would have nothing to do with anything, so you'd still be
wrong.

The only reason there was a Malcom X movie at all is because
Spike Lee was brave and had earned the respect of Jewish
Hollywood and had the economic clout to do so.



----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

you remaining one of me favorite posters on here fam

.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oooo baby I like it raw. Oooo baby I like it RAAAW!(c)ODB- Shimmy Shimmy Ya

**unwraps the Crime Scene tape around this post**

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

if I was vee-lover i'd get an alias.

not quite as concise as 'because it rhymes with olajuwon' but equally as etherous

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

>You actually don't know shit about his life. 99% of what
>you know is stuff that *he* told Alex Haley. And though
>he's an earnest as they come(it appears), there's thousands
>of details that he left out, didn't have time to cover,
>didn't feel like covering, and couldn't cover because he
>didn't know.

You're acting as if that's the only substantive material written about El Hajj. I've read countless other books on his life, ideas etc. I would bet there has been more books written about Malcolm since the mid nineties than there has been for any other historical black leader, including King. And whatever details were left out of Alex Haley's book still in my opinion isn't going to provide you with some new insight that you didn't already know.
>
>Such is the power of biography -- sometimes the best
>biographies
>divulge what was going on around the individual, details that
>
>the he/she could not have seen, had no perspective on, etc.

ok, that is true but just give me ONE example of something that could be written on Malcolm's life (By Marable) that hasn't been written or discussed at length already by someone who was close to him? Maybe for you learning little details about the man will add some richness to his story but as far as what I already know about his life I can't see some new details adding or lessening my opinion of the person.
>
>Heck, half of 'Bearing the Cross' isn't about MLK
>specifically,
>but about the setting, the ambiance, the mood, etc. It what
>makes it amazing.

But King is another one that I include when I say what else is there to learn about the man, his life works and the controversy surrounding his life that you haven't read or heard or seen? And as far as the book you mentioned setting the ambiance and mood about King, if anyone has even a casual knowledge about that time period knows full well how perilous it was for blacks throughout the south. That was apparent long before there was a Martin Luther King.

>Uh. White people are still writing biographies about
>John Wayne, and Abraham Lincoln. That's not specific, at all,
>to black people.

I hate it when ppl, especially black ppl, use the "white people are doing the same thing" argument." And part of the reason why (white) historians continuously prop up ppl such as Lincoln or Jefferson or John Wayne is because they're trying to run from as well as retell American history through their own lens.

And besides, that's their issue. We don't have to continuously tell only the stories of Martin or Malcolm, especially so when there's other very important people most black kids and adults alike have never even heard of. This is part of the reason why so many young college kids I know and have worked with have this attitude that suggests our history began in the 60s and that all the worthwhile, historical and revolutionary examples to uphold came from that era.

Most (college) kids can't tell you anything about Paul Robeson or Benjamin Banneker or Ida B. Well or George Washington Carver, someone who was just as important to the south's history as was King but ask any young high school student or even the average black college student for that matter, which historical figures they admire or that that they have heard mentioned before and almost w/o fail they'll say Martin or Malcolm.
>
>And I'd argue the exact opposite: Malcom X's legacy is
>begging for a different, fresh take by a pre-eminent
>scholar like Marable, because the Autobiography, as
>outstanding

But again, I have had this argument with so many ppl in regards to "Malcolm x" vs El Hajj Malik Shabazz and I make that distinction because right at the point when Malcolm begins to make the transformation from Malcolm to El Hajj Malik Shabazz his life is cut short. So we never got the chance to see the evolvement of his life and people still to this day cling to the fiery Malcolm X which is totally unfair to his legacy. Anything Marable writes about will only come from when he was in the NOI or when he was exiled because there is not much to go on after he made the name change and left the NOI because he was assassinated shortly after.


>as it is, has monopolized the opinion on Malcom, which is
>never healthy. The odds are there were phenomenon and details
>that we have no idea about.

But in terms of his early beginnings and his death, his vision for black people and his larger world view, what other detail(s) could add anything significant to his story that would cause you to see the man differently?
>
>Another problem with Malcom's legacy is that he's almost
>seen as mythical. His transformations come across as magical
>and holy, which is the point he wanted to put across (as a
>Muslim), but I'd be willing to bet there's different ways to
>look at the multiple transformations.

See, I disagree. The NOI is chock full of brothers who have almost the same identical beginnings as X. Most of their members started on the streets hustlin, they get caught and locked up for some time, gets out and they join the NOI. The difference with X is that he was more charismatic and had gifts and qualities that Elijah Muhammad knew would attract people to their organization so it was important to have him out front being the mouthpiece for the organization.
>
>I've even said that his story isn't particularly easy to
>identify with because of how its painted...he almost seems
>like a superhero. Its one of the reasons I've always said
>that I was personally touched more by 'Soledad Brother' than
>I was by 'Autobiography of Malcom X'.

See, honestly, that's maybe why I come at this from a different perspective because to me his story doesn't read like a superhero. I never fully could grasped the heroic aspect that so many have attached to his story. The greatest part of his life and legacy occurred before anyone could see his full transformation and how he was going to use that to empower black people as well as work with other non black people. That is the best thing I think one can take from his story...that even a person who was once a part of this cult like group, teaching and preaching this hateful rhetoric can also evolve and see the inherent good in all people. Anything prior to that would be tantamount to someone going back studying the life of Cassius Clay instead of Muhammad Ali.

>The only reason there was a Malcom X movie at all is because
>Spike Lee was brave and had earned the respect of Jewish
>Hollywood and had the economic clout to do so.

And you're leaving out that he didn't want a white filmaker, who was scheduled to do the movie 1st, doing the movie. And further more, it was that movie in the 90s that spawned black people's newfound interest in X and then Malcolm X all of a sudden becomes this pop culture figure much in the same way Che Guevara's image and likeness has been marketed and exploited.

grassrootsphilosopher

>You're acting as if that's the only substantive material
>written about El Hajj. I've read countless other books on his
>life, ideas etc. I would bet there has been more books written
>about Malcolm since the mid nineties than there has been for
>any other historical black leader, including King. And
>whatever details were left out of Alex Haley's book still in
>my opinion isn't going to provide you with some new insight
>that you didn't already know.

Explain something to me, Einstein:

How can you know what details are relevant, what we
do or don't know, if those details haven't been fully
divulged?

Your logic is an anti-tautology, a 100% surefire way to make
sure we never learn anything new about anything.


>ok, that is true but just give me ONE example of something
>that could be written on Malcolm's life (By Marable) that
>hasn't been written or discussed at length already by someone
>who was close to him?

Scholarly treatment can often provide an objectivity
that someone "close to him" cannot provide, especially when
it comes to flaws. This point applies for his early life as
much as his late life. Blunders, failings, misgivings, and
insecurities make the character just as much as anything
else.


>But King is another one that I include when I say what else is
>there to learn about the man, his life works and the
>controversy surrounding his life that you haven't read or
>heard or seen? And as far as the book you mentioned setting
>the ambiance and mood about King, if anyone has even a casual
>knowledge about that time period knows full well how perilous
>it was for blacks throughout the south. That was apparent long
>before there was a Martin Luther King.

What are you talking about?

The multiple texts about MLK have added significantly
to King, because they added nuance to a character that
most of white America simply branded as a get-along-guy.


Without multiple texts:

We don't know he was a socialist.

We don't know he was a philanderer.

We don't know the details of the children's march.

We don't know his lousy relationship with his family.

We don't know that he supported marriage rights for gays
(many people still don't know this)

^^^All of this came from texts, many written *after* his
legacy was solidified (i.e. the national holiday)


So King is a *perfect* example for why we *should*
continue reading and redefining the lens through
which we view our leaders, even if someone else
did write a book(s) already.


Its the great thing about ideas: you don't stop exploring
just because someone else did before you.


Why?


Because the other people might have been slightly biased
(at least), or an idiot (at worst).



>I hate it when ppl, especially black ppl, use the "white
>people are doing the same thing" argument." And part of the
>reason why (white) historians continuously prop up ppl such as
>Lincoln or Jefferson or John Wayne is because they're trying
>to run from as well as retell American history through their
>own lens.

No, its worse when black people say "I hate it when
black people do ____" when the issue they are complaining
about has nothing, at all, to do with black people.


If you have a problem with people over-studying things,
that's a personal issue. You make yourself look like a
bigger idiot when you make it specific to black people.


>And besides, that's their issue. We don't have to continuously
>tell only the stories of Martin or Malcolm, especially so when
>there's other very important people most black kids and adults
>alike have never even heard of. This is part of the reason why
>so many young college kids I know and have worked with have
>this attitude that suggests our history began in the 60s and
>that all the worthwhile, historical and revolutionary
>examples to uphold came from that era.

Okay. Different issue, and I can understand that.


If you want other people to give other leaders some credit,
then you start that movement.


Besides -- complaining about a Manning Marable book is not
the way to go, because, IRONICALLY, he's a guy that you should
know about: one of the pre-eminent scholars of our time.
Unlike a lot of other black scholars of black history, he
doesn't market himself, is not into the pop-social critic
thing....he sort of just shuts the fuck up and studies things correctly.


How about you start recognizing him?



Your first step: Read his new book on Malcom.


>Most (college) kids can't tell you anything about Paul Robeson
>or Benjamin Banneker or Ida B. Well or George Washington
>Carver, someone who was just as important to the south's
>history as was King but ask any young which historical figures
>they admire or that that they have heard mentioned before and
>almost w/o fail they'll say Martin or Malcolm.


Okay -- and part of the reason why this is so is because
young people have an IDEALIZED pictures of Malcom and Martin.


Why?


Because we absolutely refuse to have an honest discussion
about either one.


How do we conquer this?


By telling more nuanced details of these leaders, like
the one Marable is trying to (that you're criticizing).



^^See what I did there?


>But again, I have had this argument with so many ppl in
>regards to "Malcolm x" vs El Hajj Malik Shabazz and I make
>that distinction because right at the point when Malcolm
>begins to make the transformation from Malcolm to El Hajj
>Malik Shabazz his life is cut short. So we never got the
>chance to see the evolvement of his life and people still to
>this day cling to the fiery Malcolm X which is totally unfair
>to his legacy. Anything Marable writes about will only come
>from when he was in the NOI or when he was exiled because
>there is not much to go after he made the name change and left
>the NOI because he was assassinated shortly after.


a) That's patently false. Malcom did a lot post second
transformation

b) Even if Malcom didn't do much post second transformation,
there's plenty of detail about his early life that one can
divulge, stuff he didn't tell Alex Haley. Again -- we won't
know until we find out what it is, just like most discoveries.


>But in terms of his early beginnings and his death, his vision
>for black people and his larger world view, what other
>detail(s) could add anything significant to his story that
>would cause you to see the man differently?


Just stop. Please.


>See, I disagree. The NOI is chock full of brothers who have
>almost the same identical beginnings as X. Most of their
>members started on the streets hustlin, they get caught and
>locked up for some time, gets out and they join the NOI. The
>difference with X is that he was more charismatic and had
>gifts and qualities that Elijah Muhammad knew would attract
>people to their organization so it was important to have him
>out front being the mouthpiece for the organization.


Um. Ok. Not sure what this has to do with anything.


>See, honestly, that's maybe why I come at this from a
>different perspective because to me his story doesn't read
>like a superhero. I never fully could grasp the heroic aspect
>that so many have attached to his story. The greatest part of
>his life and legacy occurred before anyone could see his full
>transformation and how he was going to use that to empower
>black people as well as work with other non black people. That
>is the best thing I think one can take from his story that
>even a person who was a part of his cult like group who is
>teaching and preaching this hateful rhetoric can also evolve
>and see the inherent good in all people.


Ok. I respect that.



>And you're leaving out that he didn't want a white filmaker,
>who was scheduled to do the movie 1st, doing the movie. And
>further more, it was that movie in the 90s that spawned black
>people's newfound interest in X and then Malcolm X all of a
>sudden becomes this pop culture figure much in the same way
>Che Guevara has been marketed.

Totally. Not sure what this has to do with the rest of your
point, though.

Okay. Different issue, and I can understand that.
vee-lover don't say anything else after this:

"If you want other people to give other leaders some credit,
then you start that movement.


Besides -- complaining about a Manning Marable book is not
the way to go, because, IRONICALLY, he's a guy that you should
know about: one of the pre-eminent scholars of our time.
Unlike a lot of other black scholars of black history, he
doesn't market himself, is not into the pop-social critic
thing....he sort of just shuts the fuck up and studies things correctly.


How about you start recognizing him?



Your first step: Read his new book on Malcom."

>Explain something to me, Einstein:
>
>How can you know what details are relevant, what we
>do or don't know, if those details haven't been fully
>divulged?

When it comes to historical figures, there's always going to be things that are NOT widely known by the public or written about by historians...but in the end, those details don't really add or take away from the overarching story/legacy of the said person...

Muhammad Ali is also someone who comes to mind when I think about someone that everything (essential) has been written or said about him...but I'm sure there's things that could be written about him from another person/scholar perspective but would it really add or deduce anything from the legacy of what we now know of Ali already?
>
>Your logic is an anti-tautology, a 100% surefire way to make
>sure we never learn anything new about anything.

No, it's the opposite. I don't think there's enough scholarly material done on so many other great people that it makes me think a lot of these so-called scholars are a bit lazy or have become intellectually fatigued by this anti intellectual generation we're apart of. And most people, particularly black people, are just not reading...especially subject matter pertaining to history...unless it's people that the mass media and/or pop culture have made them trend towards e.g. Malcolm X or King or Che.

>Scholarly treatment can often provide an objectivity
>that someone "close to him" cannot provide, especially when
>it comes to flaws. This point applies for his early life as
>much as his late life. Blunders, failings, misgivings, and
>insecurities make the character just as much as anything
>else.

Are you telling me you haven't read material that has discussed in detail Malcolm's character flaws? I've read books on tops of books that have discussed Malcolm's many short comings...one in particular was a book that offered a comparison between he and King's ideas. And the author talked about how sexist both Malcolm and King were. How brutally critical he was of other leaders etc...there is more than enough material written about Malcolm X, the whole person.



>What are you talking about?
>
>The multiple texts about MLK have added significantly
>to King, because they added nuance to a character that
>most of white America simply branded as a get-along-guy.

But (to still be writing about King) is being intellectually lazy to me. King has been canonized more than enough and people such as Michael Eric Dyson, for instance, who just wrote a book on King is guilty of this over saturation of ppl like X and King as well as other scholars. We in fact do more of a disservice to these men and their legacy by stacking the book shelves with countless, sometimes vapid, volumes of books on them.
>
>
>Without multiple texts:
>
>We don't know he was a socialist.
>
>We don't know he was a philanderer.
>
>We don't know the details of the children's march.
>
>We don't know his lousy relationship with his family.
>
>We don't know that he supported marriage rights for gays
>(many people still don't know this)

Fam, all the those things you named I knew when I was in high school about King. I knew he was sympathetic to socialist viewpoints; I knew he cheated on his wife multiple times just from people who were close to him divulging that info (Ralph David Abernathy in particular)...and I knew his problems with his wife surfaced when taped phone conversations from the CIA had him in private moments with other women. As far as the gay marriage is concerned, never heard that.

But I would submit that anyone who claims to know anything about King has heard these things before. How in depth they know of each and every thing you listed is another question.
>
>^^^All of this came from texts, many written *after* his
>legacy was solidified (i.e. the national holiday)

But King's holiday was passed in the 80s by most states. So material that has been written post King holiday is perfectly ok but here we are in 2010 and if scholars feel the need to continue writing about someone that has been written about more than NOT just Black leaders, but any other person in the 20th century, then I think that needs to be questioned. I think it speaks to why so many blk (& white ppl) know so little of American history because we're usually fed the same typical suspects when discussing the great leaders of the past of American history.
>
>
>So King is a *perfect* example for why we *should*
>continue reading and redefining the lens through
>which we view our leaders, even if someone else
>did write a book(s) already.
>
>
>Its the great thing about ideas: you don't stop exploring
>just because someone else did before you.
>
>
>Why?

yes, if the subject is that vastly complex and dense then yes, it requires as much information that can possibly be known but in the case of King and X, I really think this is why people see these men as immortals or demi-gods because of the volume of books written about them and panel discussions done on them and we end up creating mythic images of these ppl or worse, caricatures of them.
>
>
>Because the other people might have been slightly biased
>(at least), or an idiot (at worst).

But again, we have volumes of books to contrasts about these men, Malcolm in particular since that's who we're discussing, which gives you a broader view of the person to go on and you don't have to only reference one or two books about him. And from the volume of books written about him over the years, you should get a sense of who he was personally and the leader he was w/o some new book written about his life.

>No, its worse when black people say "I hate it when
>black people do ____" when the issue they are complaining
>about has nothing, at all, to do with black people.

The issue isn't a black or white issue; the issue is about why the need to continuously write about the same (black) historical people when there are so many other stories to tell about people who were just as important to American history and deserve to have their stories told too. It conveys, from the plethora of books written about them, that these people must be the most significant people in our history and have been the most instrumental in shaping our destiny as a country and that's not altogether true.
>
>
>If you have a problem with people over-studying things,
>that's a personal issue. You make yourself look like a
>bigger idiot when you make it specific to black people.

It's not specific to any one group but when you factor in that black people are probably some of the most least informed people when it comes to their own history, then yes, I have a problem with our scholars only telling us about a handful of people.

>
>If you want other people to give other leaders some credit,
>then you start that movement.

I do the best I can now. I'm constantly beating the drum for people in our history that people have never known or heard about. I wish there were more books written about someone like John Brown for instance. I think his life would serve as a valuable lesson for both white and black people in today's times. Ask any young person have they heard of John Brown and I bet your question will be met with a blank stare.
>
>
>Besides -- complaining about a Manning Marable book is not
>the way to go, because, IRONICALLY, he's a guy that you
>should
>know about: one of the pre-eminent scholars of our time.
>Unlike a lot of other black scholars of black history, he
>doesn't market himself, is not into the pop-social critic
>thing....he sort of just shuts the fuck up and studies things
>correctly.

I have been reading Marable since the early 90s. My first book by him was "HOW CAPITALISM UNDERDEVELOPED BLACK AMERICA" which was an excellent read...and I've read a bunch of his essays. He is one of the last true scholar cut from the same cloth as a John Henrik Clarke and John Hope Franklin.
>
>
>How about you start recognizing him?

read above statement....
>
>
>
>Your first step: Read his new book on Malcom.

I've already read the 1ST BOOK BY HIM ON MALCOLM which kinda goes back to my original point on this matter.
>
>
>>Most (college) kids can't tell you anything about Paul
>Robeson
>>or Benjamin Banneker or Ida B. Well or George Washington
>>Carver, someone who was just as important to the south's
>>history as was King but ask any young which historical
>figures
>>they admire or that that they have heard mentioned before
>and
>>almost w/o fail they'll say Martin or Malcolm.
>
>
>Okay -- and part of the reason why this is so is because
>young people have an IDEALIZED pictures of Malcom and Martin.

And we've helped to contribute to that....
>
>
>
>Why?
>
>
>Because we absolutely refuse to have an honest discussion
>about either one.

I've been trying to have an honest discussion about both for years. I, for one, have always said that I think King was a very sincere man who truly believed in what he was fighting for and the methodology used...I think Malcolm was a man of his time; I never really regarded X as a serious thinker when he was part of the Nation which is who most people still associate him with.

I think we didn't get a chance to witness what type of real change he could have offered because of his assassination. But having said that, I think black people and to some degree, society at large as well, have almost deified these men which has rendered us incapable of real objectivity. Neither to me offered real pragmatic solutions to the problem of race and both were only espousing ideas that previous leaders had already written and taught/talked about e.g. black self determination and black self reliance.


>>But again, I have had this argument with so many ppl in
>>regards to "Malcolm x" vs El Hajj Malik Shabazz and I make
>>that distinction because right at the point when Malcolm
>>begins to make the transformation from Malcolm to El Hajj
>>Malik Shabazz his life is cut short. So we never got the
>>chance to see the evolvement of his life and people still to
>>this day cling to the fiery Malcolm X which is totally
>unfair
>>to his legacy. Anything Marable writes about will only come
>>from when he was in the NOI or when he was exiled because
>>there is not much to go after he made the name change and
>left
>>the NOI because he was assassinated shortly after.
>
>
>a) That's patently false. Malcom did a lot post second
>transformation

I wouldn't say a lot. But his most significant works came after he left the Nation which was go to the UN and have the U.S. brought up on crimes against its own people. But we didn't get to see the full fruition of that movement. But this is not the Malcolm that people still write and talk about. We're still clinging to the firebrand Malcolm X.
>
>b) Even if Malcom didn't do much post second transformation,
>there's plenty of detail about his early life that one can
>divulge, stuff he didn't tell Alex Haley. Again -- we won't
>know until we find out what it is, just like most discoveries.

Again, that's like writing a book on Muhammad Ali. I'm sure there are some things that could be revealed right to this day that the general public wasn't aware of but overall, it's not going to add or take away from the legacy and writing another book about his life at this point is extraneous.

>>See, I disagree. The NOI is chock full of brothers who have
>>almost the same identical beginnings as X. Most of their
>>members started on the streets hustlin, they get caught and
>>locked up for some time, gets out and they join the NOI. The
>>difference with X is that he was more charismatic and had
>>gifts and qualities that Elijah Muhammad knew would attract
>>people to their organization so it was important to have him
>>out front being the mouthpiece for the organization.
>
>
>Um. Ok. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Well, you said Malcolm's life almost reads like a super hero and I say that's not true at all in my opinion. His story is pretty common amongst the ranks of the NOI. This is part of the problem that I see...that in death, these people actually become bigger (although diluted) the further removed we become from their passing.

grassrootsphilosopher

If we follow your theory it's "intellectually lazy" to still be writing about MLK, we never would have Taylor Branch's trilogy, probably the most definitive books written on MLK.
Be mad that there aren't more books written about John Henrik Clarke (or better yet, WRITE THEM), because we need more books about others. But to say we need less books about others is foolhardily.





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

solutions.


>If we follow your theory it's "intellectually lazy" to still
>be writing about MLK, we never would have Taylor Branch's
>trilogy, probably the most definitive books written on MLK.

And w/o those books does that mean we wouldn't have a clearer picture of what we already know of King?

>Be mad that there aren't more books written about John Henrik
>Clarke (or better yet, WRITE THEM), because we need more books
>about others. But to say we need less books about others is
>foolhardily.

Again, the point you're making as well as some of what O_E said is what's problematic as far as I'm concerned which is that people seem to think the main objective for reading and learning about these historical people, like King and X or whoever, is to gain as much information about the person, the messenger, instead of their ideals, and the message they espoused. And what ends up happening is it becomes (personality worship)...as has been the case with both King and Malcolm.

The best way to treat these men's legacy with some sort of clarity and objectivity is NOT by writing as many books on them as possible. I think it is the opposite; there should be more material written on other trailblazers that made great and significant contributions to our history so that their posterity understands that there have been many great men (& women) who have done great things in the name of freedom...and not just a handful of ppl which is what one would gather just based on the way BLACK HISTORY IS TAUGHT in our schools.

And lastly, there should also be more critical thought applied to their ideas and less of a focus on the men. This is the only way we can improve upon whatever it is they passed down to us.

And just for the purpose of full disclosure, I am working on a book that examines the lives and lessons of several great *Black* leaders. I want to address where they were correct in their strategies/philospies and where they erred. And the timeline I'm starting from is Frederick Douglass and it ends with Minister Louis Farrakhan.

grassrootsphilosopher

And you wonder why so few books have been written about other figures.

>Again, the point you're making as well as some of what O_E
>said is what's problematic as far as I'm concerned which is
>that people seem to think the main objective for reading and
>learning about these historical people, like King and X or
>whoever, is to gain as much information about the person, the
>messenger, instead of their ideals, and the message they
>espoused. And what ends up happening is it becomes
>(personality worship)...as has been the case with both King
>and Malcolm.

And you don't think all these additional books being written about King and X don't discuss their ideals and messages as well?

>The best way to treat these men's legacy with some sort of
>clarity and objectivity is NOT by writing as many books on
>them as possible. I think it is the opposite; there should be
>more material written on other trailblazers that made great
>and significant contributions to our history so that their
>posterity understands that there have been many great men (&
>women) who have done great things in the name of freedom...and
>not just a handful of ppl which is what one would gather just
>based on the way BLACK HISTORY IS TAUGHT in our schools.

You know, it can be and/both, not either/or. You don't seriously think that if there were some moratorium put in place to prevent more books on X and MLK being written/published that there would be a sudden outpouring of books on Nat Turner, do you? It's not like one hinders the other from happening. Most of us working in the book industry know the exact opposite is true. Have you not noticed the increased number of books on the founding fathers after the success of "1776" and the other books by McCullough? Or how ten years ago every damn YA book was about wizards, and now every damn YA book is about vampires? Are you not aware that it is an industry predicated on this type of ambulance chasing? An industry that fuels the very research being done by Marable and others.

As for the sheer nonsense that is the school system, much less its treatment of black history, I'm sure all are in agreement about its failure. Most students know more about black history through everyday exposure than they do from school. In regards to MLK and X specifically, I can only speak on my own experiences. As one who went to public school in a state that prides itself on having a good education system (Delaware) during the '90s, I can tell you what we learned about MLK was cursory at best. It was basically the equivalent to watching the sportscenter highlights of a ballgame: just the big points.
And Malcolm? Malcolm was not mentioned until 12th grade. No bullshit, the 12th grade. I'm not surprised about this, but assuming that he got a lot of press is quite false.

>And lastly, there should also be more critical thought applied
>to their ideas and less of a focus on the men. This is the
>only way we can improve upon whatever it is they passed down
>to us.

You can't ignore the man and think you're going to get any kind of improvement. That is ridiculous.

>And just for the purpose of full disclosure, I am working on a
>book that examines the lives and lessons of several great
>*Black* leaders. I want to address where they were correct in
>their strategies/philospies and where they erred. And the
>timeline I'm starting from is Frederick Douglass and it ends
>with Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Best of luck with your book.




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

try and live a life as correctly as you possibly can. That is how we truly honor their legacy. There's a poem about Frederick Douglass that encapsulates how we should honor Frederick Douglass that I think really speaks to all those we admire in history:

Frederick Douglass by Robert Hayden

When it is finally ours, this freedom, this liberty, this beautiful
and terrible thing, needful to man as air,
usable as earth; when it belongs at last to all,
when it is truly instinct, brain matter, diastole, systole,
reflex action; when it is finally won; when it is more
than the gaudy mumbo jumbo of politicians:
this man, this Douglass, this former slave, this Negro
beaten to his knees, exiled, visioning a world
where none is lonely, none hunted, alien,
this man, superb in love and logic, this man
shall be remembered. Oh, not with statues' rhetoric,
not with legends and poems and wreaths of bronze alone,
but with the lives grown out of his life, the lives
fleshing his dream of the beautiful, needful thing.


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.



>And you don't think all these additional books being written
>about King and X don't discuss their ideals and messages as
>well?

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

Malcolm NEVER wrote one book in his life. 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, it can be and/both, not either/or. You don't
>seriously think that if there were some moratorium put in
>place to prevent more books on X and MLK being
>written/published that there would be a sudden outpouring of
>books on Nat Turner, do you?

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.


>It's not like one hinders the
>other from happening. Most of us working in the book industry
>know the exact opposite is true.

You're talking about it's affect on the book industry, I'm talking about it's affect on our collective psyche. When we concentrate so much material on King and/or X, so much so that when I go in any bookstore in Atlanta, there's an entire bookshelf dedicated exclusively to King and X, it gives the impression that their contributions to the struggle were more important than others of they have entire sections in a bookstore dedicated just for them.

>Have you not noticed the
>increased number of books on the founding fathers after the
>success of "1776" and the other books by McCullough? Or how
>ten years ago every damn YA book was about wizards, and now
>every damn YA book is about vampires? Are you not aware that
>it is an industry predicated on this type of ambulance
>chasing? An industry that fuels the very research being done
>by Marable and others.

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.

>And Malcolm? Malcolm was not mentioned until 12th grade. No
>bullshit, the 12th grade. I'm not surprised about this, but
>assuming that he got a lot of press is quite false.

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

>You can't ignore the man and think you're going to get any
>kind of improvement. That is ridiculous.

Of course you have to discuss the messenger as well as their message but there seems to be an imbalance with too much concentration on the personality and NOT enough critical analysis of their ideas/philosophies.
>
>>And just for the purpose of full disclosure, I am working on
>a
>>book that examines the lives and lessons of several great
>>*Black* leaders. I want to address where they were correct
>in
>>their strategies/philospies and where they erred. And the
>>timeline I'm starting from is Frederick Douglass and it ends
>>with Minister Louis Farrakhan.
>
>Best of luck with your book.

thanx, fam...

grassrootsphilosopher

>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

a few things we should be clear about, regarding the movie and its effect on pop culture.
Norman Jewison, an acclaimed filmmaker in his own right, was interested in doing films about the black struggle in America. Let's recall that Norman made IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, A SOLDIER'S STORY, hell he even directed Harry Belafonte's tv special BELAFONTE NEW YORK. So it's not like they were getting Paley O'Fay to make a movie about a black guy. He's made contributions. His research led him to Malcolm. He put together a pretty good proposal and was given the greenlight to start working on a movie about Malcolm. Denzel very quickly signed on, 1)because he worked with Jewison in A SOLDIER'S STORY and 2)everybody was familiar with the Denzel's performance in the play about Malcolm (the name of which escapes me). None of that was an easy feat, and Norman did an amazing job of getting a major studio to agree to make a film about Malcolm.
Spike, who depending on who you ask had been working out ideas for his own Malcolm flick or didn't want to see the white film version of Malcolm (see: Cry Freedom, a movie about South Africa but guest starring Denzel as Steven Biko) pitched a fit about it. A lot of the negative, "crazier than Oliver Stone" press that Spike gets you can pretty much attribute to this. Spike got a meeting with Warner Bros. and Jewison to discuss this. I don't know how Spike pulled it off, but he got WB to give him Malcolm and they gave Jewison an IOU (you'd be surprised at the number of film stuff that happens via IOU).
You can call Spike's actions brave, rash, rude, childish, amazing, or whatever, but by no means should it be implied that he "earned the respect of Jewish Hollywood". Nor should it be implied he had "the economic clout to do so". Spike's films make NO MONEY. And to the people who give money so that other people can make movies, that's a very big deal. Spike is alienating (regardless of whether or not he should be considered such). And to the the people who decide what projects get attention/money/the green light, that's a very big deal. The fact that Spike can get h'wood to give him any money to make any movie is a testament to how absolutely determined Spike is. He quite clearly works harder than half of h'wood and puts out better movies because of it.
Not only did the studio not give enough money to Spike's movie, Spike had to ask for donations. In Hollywood, this is so unheard of it defies explanation. Dude sersiously went to famous black folks and asked for money. I cannot stress enough how amazing this is. After WB saw the amount of attention Spike was getting for this, WB decdided to put up the rest of the money.
Epilogue: we have Spike's Malcolm X, which in my opinion is one of his best films, certainly the best performance of Denzel's career (real actors are STILL scared of that performance). WB made some money off the movie, not as much as they were hoping (they wanted figures that matched JFK, Oliver Stone's recent biopic, but neglected to realize that was damn near impossible in that time). Norman Jewison continued to make films, cashing in his IOU with "The Hurricane".
Everybody is more or less happy with each other (although I'm sure Jewison has the occasional grumble about his movie getting stolen from him).

The movie's impact on pop culture was impressive, considering how few in number white people went to see it. And obviously within the black community X's stock grew. But let's not act like dude was unheard of before the movie. Every rapper out of New York at the time was either a Muslim, NOI, or 5%er, and ALL of them have referenced Malcom. His book is immensely popular, one of the best selling autobiographies of all time. You might have seen more X hats after the movie than before, but it's not like some huge pop culture phenomenon. You don't see white people wearing Malcolm shirts. And when you do, that's when you'll know it's been marketed and exploited.




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

http://i806.photobucket.com/albums/yy345/toasty_T/5d2h4l.gif

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

respect man, respect.

and you shoulda mentioned charles darwin and winston churchill in the group of white men who get biographies every two years or something lol.

well done. You make a convincing argument sir.

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

There are few books written on Malcolm. More than other important figures (black or otherwise), but still few.
It is also an accepted idea/practice that whenever the foremost literature on an historical figure is an autobiography, the historical figure in question does not have enough worthy literature.
While there should definitely be more books written about other black figures (where's the great Medgar Evers bio?), the need for more scholarly research on Malcolm is necessary.


p.s.
O_E, damn homie, I'm speechless.




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

it's just a matter of opinion imo
vee lover point still stands imo
but i can see OE's perspective since more books and movies isn't really hurting anybody and there's always the possibility of added research perhaps revealing some new twists or events
but like veelover said nothing at this point is going change ppls perception so it's whatever

~~~~~~

>but like veelover said nothing at this point is going change
>ppls perception so it's whatever
>

people's perceptions change all the time due to new research/books being written about historical figures.

and X needed extra strength viagra.....
nobody cared

~~~~~~