Scot Brown

February 3, 2008

Second Speech: Analysis of Message to the Grassroots

I. The last time I was up here I stated my belief in evaluating people based on their own words and deeds, and not simply accepting a view that has been molded for us by someone else.

A. In this vein, I wish to look at the way Malcolm X outlines the prospects for a Black Revolution in his 1963 Message to the Grassroots.

II. When I did research for this speech, what amazed me was the number of hits I would get for Malcolm X, the movie by Spike Lee. Nothing against the film, for it does a better job of showing Malcolm’s positions than most places, and I would recommend it to those interested.

A. There is danger in reducing a man’s life and work into two hours of film. Only if it serves as a platform from which to launch further inquiry, has the piece fulfilled its obligation to the subject.

B. The reason I harp on this point so much is that I see this as a real problem in our contemporary American discussion of race relations, and especially about of the leaders of the 60's era Civil Rights movement. I don’t need to look far for evidence of this. Just a couple weeks ago, there ran a few letters in our own Daily Collegian, in response to an Op-ed piece about white privilege.

C. Several of the letters showed a real ignorance of what the man had said and meant in his life. Because of four words, “I have a dream,” King has lost his meaning for our generation. Kevin Yoder, one of the students who wrote in, alleges that King would be against affirmative action practices because he talked of a world where his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” (King). But the fact is that King meant nothing of the sort. If those people had actually taken the effort to read and understand what King said, beyond one line from one speech, they would know that he fully supported affirmative action practices as a way of addressing past injustices and current prejudices. And to deny that white skin privilege exists, and then to belittle and trivialize the matter Stephen Brown does in his letter, is a slap in the face to the people, who are still alive, who remember a time when a black person could not drink from the same water fountain as a black person.

D. But it is easy to reduce and simplify, instead of looking hard at the issue. And that is why we have the same problem with Malcolm X. Most people, upon hearing the words “by any means necessary,” conjure up images of Black Panthers stalking the streets with AK’s and Molotov cocktails, intent on killing whitey.

E. This same reductionist, simplistic and warped reading of history and context that has pervaded our discourse about race also colors our understanding of Civil Rights leaders. Although there were of course people who, at the time, were harshly critical of X, as seen in a New York Times article from 1962, where the mayor of New York, Samuel Yorty, characterizes Malcolm and his movement as a “Nazi-type of movement” (Times).

III. So what we have here in this speech from 1963 is Malcolm at the beginning of a crossroads in his life. He was still a part of the nation of Islam, but despite that he grounds his argument about black nationalism in Black identity, not religious identity or even cultural identity, as he makes sure to include all colored people around the world in his address. This push for political and economic black nationalism puts him somewhat at odds with the stance of the NOI, because their push was for black unity through religious nationalism.

A. His argument is that since all people of color “catch hell” together from the white man, they need to bond together if they are to effect any change in the situation. He even compares all of the non white people of the world to one family, a family that must not allow the unrelated whites to see its inner turmoil, lest it appear weak. Here we can X’s anti-integrationism, and the clearest embodiment of this is in the time a white girl asked him what she could do to help and X simply replied “nothing.”

B. But in this argument for Black unity, he is careful to draw the line between those who are willing to fight, the “field negros,” and those who aren’t, the “house negros.” And this is the way he distances himself from King and most of the Christian leadership, especially those who took place in the 1963 March on Washington, the location of King’s “I have a dream” speech, of which he is particularly critical. While most people see the March as one of the Civil Rights era’s highest triumphs, to X is was little more than a sham. The March, originally militant in nature and led by blacks, was pacified and weakened. While most of us believe integration is admirable, and Malcolm would later come to believe so as well, what he railed against here was the loss of representation in the March, and subsequent loss of agency.

III. Now onto violence. Malcolm was no stranger to violence, and he did not shun it. This is why, in this speech, he analyzes the course of several white revolutions, throughout history. He then contrasts those with the current Negro revolution, and offers the Black revolution as an alternative.

A. Looking at this work, it is clear that he thinks very little of the Negro revolution. To him, it is not even a revolution, because it lacks one necessary quality, bloodshed. His analysis of various white nationalist revolutions throughout history, such as the American, French, and Russian revolutions, reveal that all shared the same essential ingredients of bloodshed and land. While he does simplify these to the extent that the places the American revolution, which was political in nature, in the same category as the French and Russian ones, which were social in nature, his analysis is correct in that violence is a key element in the white man’s revolution.

IV. So then, why is it not in the Black man’s revolution, or more correctly, in the Negro Revolution? To leave the context of the speech itself here for a minute, can I also ask, why is acceptable that the white man’s revolution is violent, but the black man’s is not? Because if we look closely at King and X, it is clear which one most white Americans are more comfortable with. And it sure as hell isn’t Malcolm. King was the pacifist, and X the militant. But were X’s views that far removed from those of our own American founding fathers?

A. X himself would have despised this comparison, because as he himself pointed out, “we didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us.” And I don’t doubt that many Americans would not take too kindly to my words here. So why is this, that we are comfortable with the idea of white people using violence to fight for their freedom, but the black man cannot? No, instead we are far more at ease when the black man pledges not to fight, but instead to hold hands with the white man and to sing “we shall overcome.” This is the essence of the split between the way our society views King and X. And it reveals a very racist and ugly prejudice still present, still strong and healthy.

B. I don’t mean to disparage King’s works at all, for I believe he and the more pacifistic elements of the Civil Rights movement made great progress with their work, despite Malcolm’s claims to the contrary. I must also acknowledge that part of the reason X is so despised is because he was tragically cut down just at the time in his life when he began to acknowledge the power of integration and cooperation. Some of what X said in his early days was unmistakably racist, and should be recognized as such. But that doesn’t mean he was wrong to believe that all people, even black ones, have a right to their life, and to protect it.

C. I still wonder why Malcolm does not have more support. After all the right to defend ourselves is one of the principle rights upon which America was founded. In the classical liberal tradition, self defense is a primary safeguard against tyranny and oppression, and this is why we have the Second Amendment. Malcolm frames this in religious terms, saying that his religion of Islam teaches him that he has the right to defend himself. It’s an “eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” This is also a jab at the Christian leadership of the time, which he felt had betrayed black people by propagating a doctrine of nonviolence. As Americans, this is one of our dearest rights, yet the man who embodied that spirit is almost universally despised. This is why Ossie Davis asks us “Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm... Did you ever really listen to him? Did he ever do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did you would know him. And if you knew him you would know why we must honor him” (Davis). Malcolm X’s vision of self defense is a far cry from the mobs in the street mental image.

D. Malcolm X did not for a minute wish to divide the black community or the rights movement up any more than was necessary, and neither did Dr. King. As X says in his autobiography, “I would be most foolish to let the white man maneuver me against the Civil Rights movement” (X). Our task is to understand how to reconcile these views and integrate them. For if their methods differed, their goal remained the same. Freedom and equality. In the words of Dr. King, “while we did not always see eye to eye... I... felt that he had the great ability to put his finger on the existence and root of the problem” (King).

E. So the next time you hear someone speak of Malcolm or King, ask questions. Question, whether this person has actually taken the effort to honor these men enough to read and listen and think about what they really said. That will not end our racial problem. But it will be a first step.

Works Cited

Brown, Stephen. “Responses to column about white privilege.” The Daily Collegian 31 Jan. 2008

<http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/01/31/responses_to_column_about_whit.aspx>

Davis, Ossie. “Malcolm X’s Eulogy.” 1965. <http://www.cmgworldwide.com/historic/malcolm/about/eulogy.htm>

King, Dr. Martin Luther. “I have a dream.” 28 Aug. 1963

<http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm>

King, Dr. Martin Luther. Telegram to Betty Shabazz. 26 Feb. 1965

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/unpub/

650226-001_To_Betty_Shabazz.htm>

“Mayor Yorty says cult backs hate.” The New York Times 27 Jul. 1962

X, Malcolm. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Random House, 1965.

Yoder, Kevin. “Responses to column about white privilege.” The Daily Collegian 31 Jan. 2008

<http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/01/31/responses_to_column_about_whit.aspx>

Comments:

Joe D: Work on your speech speed; at times you seemed winded and that hurt your fluency. Nice jesturing/body language/ posture...you looked comfortable and were able to visually display your ideas. Nice usage of language: (i.e. "strong healthy prejudice). Impressive display of knowledge and comfort w/ the subject matter.

Mike Chiang: I like your poster. It was very bold. I liked your eye contact and your hand gestures. The flow and tone of your speech was really good too, however, you spoke too fast at some parts of your speech. I also could not clearly figure out the main points were you trying to tell us. I really liked the comparison between MLK and X.

Jess Mannion: Your second speech exhibited immense improvement from the last. Your delivery was less rigid, allowing the speech to seem more conversational. It was apparent that you had done a large amount of research on your topic and had a good understanding of the subject matter. This was especially evident when answering questions. I would just suggest working on projection. Your beginning projection was somewhat passive, but improved over time; try focusing on consistency throughout the entire speech. Overall though very good and very interesting!!

Nicole: Great job Scot! I liked the poster, I want one! When you speak your stance is very confident and up front, and you always look comfortable. Your eye contact has improved, but make sure that you keep it up. Also, you spoke really fast, and it was sometimes hard to catch what you were saying. I loved the topic and your word usage. The line about AK47s and Molotov Cocktails made me laugh. =) You've really improved!

Liz Peters: Definitely improved form last time with your fluency and eye contact. You had eye contact for the majority of your speech. At times you were a little fast but it was understandable. You did a good job answering the questions at the end too. Good speech!