Malcolm X, one of the most influential African American leaders of the 20th Century, was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska on May 19 Shortly after Malcolm was born the family moved to Lansing, Michigan. Earl Little his father joined Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) where he publicly advocated black nationalist beliefs, prompting the local white supremacist Black Legion to set fire to their home. Little was killed by a streetcar in 1931. Authorities ruled it a suicide but the family believed he was killed by white supremacists.
Malcolm dropped out of high school after a teacher ridiculed his aspirations to become a lawyer. Malcolm worked odd jobs in Boston and then moved to Harlem in 1943 where he drifted into a life of “hustling.” He avoided the draft in World War II by declaring his intent to organize black soldiers to attack whites which led to his classification as “mentally disqualified for military service.”
Malcolm was arrested for burglary in Boston in 1946 and received a ten year prison sentence. There he joined the Nation of Islam (NOI). Upon his parole in 1952, Malcolm was called to Chicago, Illinois by NOI leader, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Like other converts, he changed his surname to “X,” symbolizing, he said, the rejection of “slave names” and his inability to claim his ancestral African name.
Recognizing his promise as a speaker and organizer for the Nation of Islam, Muhammad sent Malcolm to Boston and then in 1954 to Temple Number Seven in Harlem. Although New York’s one million blacks comprised the largest African American urban population in the United States, Malcolm noted that “there weren’t enough Muslims to fill a city bus. “Fishing” in Christian storefront churches and at competing black nationalist meetings, Malcolm built up the membership of Temple Seven. He also met his future wife, Sister Betty X, a nursing student who joined the temple in 1956.
Malcolm X quickly became a national public figure in July 1959 when CBS aired Mike Wallace’s expose on the NOI, “The Hate That Hate Produced.” This documentary revealed the views of the NOI, of which Malcolm was the principal spokesperson and showed those views to be in sharp contrast to those of most well-known African American leaders of the time.
Soon, however, Malcolm was increasingly frustrated by the NOI’s bureaucratic structure and refusal to participate in the Civil Rights Movement. His November 1963 speech in Detroit, “Message to the Grass Roots,” a bold attack on racism and a call for black unity, foreshadowed the split with his spiritual mentor, Elijah Muhammad. However, Malcolm on December 1 was suspended from the NOI for his comments in responce to JFK Death, “chickens coming home to roost” which to Muslims meant that Allah was punishing white America for crimes against black people.
Malcolm used the suspension to announce on March 8, 1964, his break with the NOI and his creation of the Muslim Mosque, Inc. Three months later he formed a strictly political group, called the Organization of Afro American Unity (OAAU) which was roughly patterned after the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
His dramatic political transformation was revealed when he spoke to the Militant Labor Forum of the Socialist Worker’s Party. By April 1964, while speaking at a CORE rally in Cleveland, Ohio, Malcolm gave his famous “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech in which he described black Americans as “victims of democracy.”
Malcolm traveled to Africa and the Middle East in late Spring 1964 and was received like a visiting head of state in many countries including Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, and Ghana. While there, Malcolm made his hajj to Mecca, Saudi Arabia and added El-Hajj to his official NOI name Malik El-Shabazz.
The transformed Malcolm reiterated these views when he addressed an OAAU rally in New York, declaring for a pan-African struggle “by any means necessary.” Malcolm spent six months in Africa in 1964 in an unsuccessful attempt to get international support for a United Nations investigation of human rights violations of Afro Americans in the United States. Upon his return to New York, his home was firebombed. Events continued to spiral downward and on February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated at the Audubon Ballroom in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan.
-
Malcolm X: Don't Be Fooled By White Liberals Or Uncle Toms {1963
-
Malcolm X | City Desk (1963) this one is really good
-
The Autobiography of Malcolm X this one is a really good book
-
Fidel Castro, Malcolm X And The Gracious Hotel Theresa In Harlem 1960 chad recognizes chad
-
🐻Link to all Hexbear comms https://hexbear.net/post/1403966
-
📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube](https://live.hexbear.net/c/movies
-
🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread https://hexbear.net/post/4737618
-
⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread https://hexbear.net/post/4738774
-
✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread https://hexbear.net/post/4887826
-
👊 New Weekly Improvement thread https://hexbear.net/post/4883919
-
🧡 Disabled comm megathread https://hexbear.net/post/4891939
-
Parenting Chat https://hexbear.net/post/4880986
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:

doesheknow.jpg
As neutrally as possible, I think there is an upsurge in this kind of postmodern thinking where where prescribing good or bad qualities to things is seen as dangerous because it means you're imposing a moral framework upon everyone else. I think someone who has actually read the postmodernist philosophers could explain it more clearly, but AFAIK it all boils down to creating metanarratives is bad (ironic that this is now absolutely considered a bad thing by the people who don't want to have absolute goods or bads).
My (kinda reactionary I guess) take is that at some point you gotta get up and say, maybe we won't ever agree on a universal truth that applies to everyone, but we should at least assert some basic fundamentals of what is good and what is bad.
I think what postmodernism is getting at is not that you cannot prescribe good or bad qualities to things, but that language itself is not some absolute thing. The culturally understood meaning of words can and does rapidly change shift through a process of usage and interaction (me when dialectics), and can take on implicit meanings. There is no way to prevent this, because arbitrariness is inherent to any system of symbols - we can only come into a critical consciousness about the narratives that are created and evolve through the interactive use of our language. So one could say that the terms "good" and "bad" have become, through usage, cross-associated with moralistic narratives regarding sin, and may make an attempt to use a different terminology to distinguish from a moralizing value judgement and some other kind of value judgement (e.g. use-value)
I can understand that line of thought, I guess my confusion is arising from not really seeing the words "good" or "bad" as carrying moral weight. So there can be no such imposition. doing a quick consultation of a dictionary I find the following:
definitions 2 & 3 for "Bad" could qualify as moralizing, but none of those for "Good" are doing so. Maybe because of my aforementioned nihilism it's obvious to me that I mean bad in the first sense (Not achieving an adequate standard; poor) but not to others. I think it's caught me off guard because of that mismatch in understanding, and maybe the people talking to me were being a little bit reflexive and triggering just on the words themselves
.
"the bike lanes around here are really bad"
"I try not to moralize"
You can say a lot about Crime and Punishment it's a good work, it has good themes, its a bad book, whatever. You definitely can't say it's a good recipe for chicken soup though.
Yeah I get what you mean, it's in terms of function and quality, not morality. If someone hit me with a Derrida quote when I complain about the quality of my headphones I'd probably want to scream at them, too. I guess there's still a criticism to be made of function and quality as parameters that we judge based on ideological metanarratives, but the longer I write this sentence a little goblin that's doing a slow JO motion gets more and more opaque in the center of my vision.
Don’t let the intellectual masturbation goblin get in your head too much, comments like this are why I love it here
I was about to comment nearly the same thing. I love these sorts of comment threads!
https://youtu.be/nsGnqf3CUW8
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
if someone hits you with a derrida quote you should just scream at them in general. here, you can scream at me
the allistics really don't want me dropping the more straightforward language I adopted to avoid getting shit from them.
"I find the bike lanes around here are inadequate to their stated function"
sounding like Season 1 Data.
is the ideological metanarrative still implied in the above sentence, or is it just the words good & bad?
Yeah, actually. It still implies that the way objects in the world are should be molded to meet their stated functions, and that the stated function is meaningful in some way.