This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Was Malcolm X a racist ?

Scroll to see replies

Do you actually know anything about Malcolm X? If you did you'd know he wasn't a racist and that his views were influenced by the NOI and in any case he abandoned those views once he left the NOI. Or do the sources you read from not go that far?

Well, considering you are my source for his views on racial segregation, I would expect that the facts are not in dispute here. I simply point out that, based on these views, he is a racist - and you are defending racial apartheid.

So basically in your eyes Churchill, Powell and Thatcher were prats? Sums up the Conservatives really; racist old farts who belong in the dark ages and only got into power because Gordon Brown effed up big time. You can scrub your nails but we can still see the dirt.

I think Churchill was a prat. I think Margaret Thatcher was a terrific Prime Minister. Enoch Powell was no prat - he was a very clever man - but he was inclined towards racist views. In case you haven't noticed, two of those three are dead and one is senile. None of them 'got into power' after Gordon Brown.

What I find amusing though is that you've made up a load of bull-****, which I have called you on, and you've simply swept it under the carpet. You said Margaret Thatcher supported apartheid - you lied. It is also amusing that you bring up Peter Griffiths; as I have mentioned, you again peddled a falsehood in relation to him - but what is certainly the case is that the Labour Party did not condemn racism in that election either - indeed, it blamed immigration on the Tories and said Labour would halt it!

Reply 21

D.R.E

Malcolm X used to be one of my 'inspirations' in life until I actually sat down to read his speeches and his autobiography.

He was very arrogant, self-absorbed and most definitely was racist.

Reply 22

harrietta

To be honest, can you blame him? He and his family were treated abosultely heiniously by white men.
I'm not saying it's 'correct' but I'm just saying what do you expect?
Him to open his arms and hug them?

Reply 23

User414413

Original post by harrietta

I'm not saying it's 'correct' but I'm just saying what do you expect?

That it wasn't the white man that abused him or his family. Rather individuals that happened to be white and not extend one characteristic that the individual had to all others that share that same characteristic. If a women broke my heart, I wouldn't extend my hatred for that women to all women, now would I?

Reply 24

CombineHarvester

He stopped having racist views (or being affiliated with them) after adopting mainstream Islam due to his experience at Hajj where people of all different races ate together, prayed together etc. NOI is a racist organisation imo, Louis Theroux did a documentary about it a while ago.

Original post by L i b

What I find amusing though is that you've made up a load of bull-****, which I have called you on, and you've simply swept it under the carpet. You said Margaret Thatcher supported apartheid - you lied.

No, not really. She may have personally been opposed to the policy, however her personal views are irrelevant.

If I remember correctly she opposed placing sanctions on the South African State by vetoing any potential economic sanctions on it.

The US and the UK could have forced South Africa to dismantle the regime far earlier and chose not to.

So she really is as reprehensible as those within South Africa that supported the regime.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 27

Law123mus

Yes and so was muhammad ali to some extent. Luther King wasn't though, he was the nice guy.

Reply 28

Law123mus

Also I believe he ironically was half white/ mixed race.

Reply 29

L i b

Original post by DorianGrayism

No, not really. She may have personally been opposed to the policy, however her personal views are irrelevant.

Her personal views - that she thought apartheid was "utterly detestable" - are irrelevant to her support of apartheid?

Claptrap.

If I remember correctly she opposed placing sanctions on the South African State by vetoing any potential economic sanctions on it.

So what? Since you're so fond of pointing out irrelevancies, let me point out one of my own: you do not have to support a certain form of sanction to oppose something. Margaret Thatcher thought sanctions would be ineffective, disproportionately harm the black population and serve only to further divide South Africa from the Commonwealth.

I'm not even really sure what you're getting at here. That Margaret Thatcher was a vocal opponent of apartheid is a documented fact.

The US and the UK could have forced South Africa to dismantle the regime far earlier and chose not to.

The British government does not go around "dismantling" "regimes" when it sees fit, and indeed when changes can be made by negotiation and consent. Did you miss the withdrawal of the British Empire from Africa?

Reply 30

Margaret Thatcher

Original post by Warrior King

Usually it's the same people who admire Winston Churchill who was well documented to be a racist given his views on immigration, Indians, Kurds, Africans and Gandhi.

How about a bit of historical context here? Churchill was born in the mid-19th century - unfortunately, racism was a fact of life in that generation, and certainly not as socially unacceptable as it is today.

Your environment and your upbringing generally shape your views. I am sure that in 100 years time, some of our perfectly acceptable views and attitudes will be considered backwards and socially unacceptable. Do you honestly think that if you placed your run-of-the-mill, working class liberal student in the womb of a mid-19th century aristocrat - his or her views would mirror the views they hold in this time?

It's moronic to apply the attitudes and values of today to a man born in the mid-19th century and expect him to adhere to them.

Are you also going to deride Abraham Lincoln for his racist views?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 31

harrietta

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Yes, but you have to understand, that most people did feel like that. Black people were undoubtably the lowest of the low in American society, no ok, not all white people were in the KKK, but it's not as though they 'liked' black people either.

i don't think that one girl breaking your heart is really the same as being treated as a second class citizen because of the colour of your skin by lots of other people is really the same, is it?

Reply 32

Warrior King

Original post by Margaret Thatcher

How about a bit of historical context here? Churchill was born in the mid-19th century - unfortunately, racism was a fact of life in that generation, and certainly not as socially unacceptable as it is today.

Your environment and your upbringing generally shape your views. I am sure that in 100 years time, some of our perfectly acceptable views and attitudes will be considered backwards and socially unacceptable. Do you honestly think that if you placed your run-of-the-mill, working class liberal student in the womb of a mid-19th century aristocrat - his or her views would mirror the views they hold in this time?

It's moronic to apply the attitudes and values of today to a man born in the mid-19th century and expect him to adhere to them. Are you also going to deride Abraham Lincoln for his racist views?

Yes it's moronic to label somebody as racist when evidence indicates they truly were right?

So by your conclusion Malcolm X's supposed "racist" character was valid given his "environment and upbringing" i.e. house burned down by the KKK, KKK murder his father, told he can't be a lawyer because of his skin colour etc.

Yes racism may have been more prevalent in the mid 19th Century but that doesn't mean it was right or should be viewed as acceptable or forgivable. If it wasn't for the one or two people who actually stood up and made a deal about racism being unacceptable that social consciousness would never have changed and we'd simply have been rooted to Churchill's way of thinking i.e. much like the BNP.

Also to the morons calling Malcolm X racist; why don't you actually read his book and watch the movie and also take note of the fact that he did himself publicly apologise for what may have been "perceived" as racist following his departure from the NOI and realising "the truth" for himself. Or doesn't that count?

The fact is Churchill was an unrepetant racist. It wouldn't matter if it was 19th, 20th, 21st centruy etc. Racism is racism and just because society was more ignorant then doesn't excuse the behaviour and perhaps it took the attrocity of the actions of the Nazi regime to highlight the wrongs of their ways.

Reply 33

Warrior King

Original post by D.R.E

Malcolm X used to be one of my 'inspirations' in life until I actually sat down to read his speeches and his autobiography.

He was very arrogant, self-absorbed and most definitely was racist.

If after reading his book you still think he was a racist etc. then either you're lying in that you actually haven't read the book at all, you can't understand English or perhaps you're just mentally retarded?

I'd say the latter. Self-absorbed? Yes he only campaigned for civil rights and eventually died for what he believed in simply to become famous right? Arrogant? What on Earth did he have to be arrogant about?

Take your head out of your rectum for a change.

Reply 34

Dr.Sweet Science

Original post by Law123mus

Yes and so was muhammad ali to some extent. Luther King wasn't though, he was the nice guy.

You really are honestly deluded or ignorant if you think MLK was a passive guy as the American media love to portray, many people who are experts on Black American history even state that MLK was even more extreme than Malcolm was once and both were good friends so obviously MLK had no quarms with how Malcom used to act.

Malcolm X was once a racist who reformed his whole personality upon realising he had been brainwashed by N.O.I and their views were contradictory to Islam. His views on white people also changed when performing Hajj and seeing how people of all different types of background from their colour of skin to their various nationalities get along in peace and tranquility.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 35

karateworm

Is there any question about it? He said the phrase "white devils" more times than I've eaten hot dinners. Sure he was part of the NOI... but he still held and repeated those views. That said, before he was killed he had changed his view point to a non-racist stance.

Reply 36

D.R.E

Original post by Warrior King

Good lord, such vitriol! You'd think I'd just slandered your mother!

He was self-absorbed, you can see that simply from the way he deals with things. He internalised everything and most of the time could not look beyond his own very limited intuition, and for some reason expect everyone to think like he does. I respect him for standing up for something, but as a human being, he was completely puerile.

Arrogant? Very much so, he spends half of his book complimenting himself on how tall he was, how light skinned he was compared to everyone else, how he had 'rare' red hair, how intelligent he was, his grandiose dreams in life, his being able to see the 'white man' for what he was... the list is endless.

Died for what he believed in? Please. His death was because of a personal feud - it had nothing to do with civil rights at all. Unless of course you think he was murdered by the US government or something.

Reply 37

4TSR

Original post by Democracy

I read his autobiography a long time ago, so correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he abandon all the racism/anti-white rhetoric after he left the Nation of Islam?

That is right. But a lot of people only read up on him up until he joined them.

The nation of Islam is just so weird!

Reply 38

Warrior King

Original post by D.R.E

So basically this is just your own misguided opinion which you're force-feeding on the rest of us and blindly think that everybody else agrees with? Hmm perhaps we've been reading very different books. Also if he is talking about himself well correct me if I'm wrong isn't that what an AUTOBIOGRAPHY is supposed to be about?

You forget his views on white people were at the time tempered by those of the NOI and of Elijah Muhammad himself and you forget to mention the fact that he dramatically changed his stance upon leaving the NOI and performing the Hajj when he realised that the Islam the NOI were preaching was misguided.

Slandering my mother? Well if you hadn't gathered by my display picture Malcolm X is one of my heroes and inspirational figures so I'm not going to be best pleased when some clown posts misinformed remarks about a man held in very high regard by millions of people worldwide be they Black, White, Brown etc.

I suggest you read the book again and maybe use a dictionary at the same time or maybe have an interpreter to hand.

Reply 39

D.R.E

Original post by Warrior King

The only person trying to 'force' anything is you, with your aggressive approach to anyone who dares differ with your assessment of Malcolm X. Incidentally, his autobiography is the one that showed me how absolutely crap the whole autobiographical genre of literature is - but that's beside the point.

Despite your insults about me, it seems you are the one who has no read the book properly. Malcolm X did not leave because he thought the NOI teachings were 'wrong' or whatever - he left because of the leader. He admired the leader and began to realise that the man was not what he purported himself to be, thus the falling out and him leaving the NOI. This is something I suggest you need to do before you start eulogising someone.

Yes, he did change his views later on in life, but that doesn't change the fact that he had been racist. He came to fame through espousing racist views. Malcolm X wasn't stupid, he knew the NOI were racist and he still joined - he was not forced.