The Autobiography of Malcolm X
I don’t know exactly how I feel about this book, except to say that it really shows the complexity of Malcolm X. He had a lot of valid, interesting points to share. Sometimes (like when he is being toured around Mecca by Saudi royalty) he seems a bit naive. At various times in his life, Malcolm did act in ways that were morally wrong… which he would be the first to admit. He also had some terrible opinions about topics both central to life (the place of women in the family and society) and far-flung (I cringed reading about the absurd pseudoscience put forth by Elijah Muhammad). But Malcolm was someone who was open to change, as co-author Alex Haley describes in the final chapters of the book, and it seems like he would have been open to revising his take on women.
I found it most interesting when Malcolm discusses (white) society’s reaction to his advocacy. Nowadays, whether on Twitter or in the wider world, it feels like the main way to dispense with an opposing argument is by ignoring it. This seems like a brazen thing to do, but it’s really not hard; just respond to a different question than the one that has been put forth. You see this most often with the cancel culture debate. A person says something offensive. Side A says, “The person in question said something offensive. There should be a sanction–or at least an understanding that what was said was racist/sexist/classist/transphobic.” A responsive way to answer that would be along the lines of, “Here are some reasons that particular person should not be sanctioned for that particular action.” But generally the responses are along the lines of:
- “It’s too easy to punish people for perceived offenses.”
- “You should not be forbidden from saying offensive things.”
- “By tarring this person with the brush of racism/sexism/etc, you are making other people want to be racist/sexist/etc.”
- Etc.
None of these responses actually deal with the core issue at hand–they pull back to a debate about the meta-issue. In lieu of defending the behavior (because it usually is not defensible), the original thesis is ignored.
Malcolm faced these kinds of responses all the time. Glib defenders of white supremacy would have nothing to say about the conditions of Black schools, the daily violence inherent in being a Black person living in the United States, but when Malcolm or other advocates for civil rights would point out injustice or its consequences, they would be attacked for having caused riots or domestic insurgency. The inequality which Black and other minority citizens face is not justifiable except by obviously racist thought, so the issue is moved to the side so that those who benefit can benefit from what they see as being on the rhetorical high ground.
Another point I liked: all white people, even if they are not racist or even anti-racist, benefit from racism. Even if racism’s benefits are declaimed, they are nonetheless garnered. White people can choose to be aware of that, or they can willfully ignore it and pretend that their successes are entirely self-made. Viewing oneself as a self-made success sometimes seems to me to be at the core of what is wrong with those of us in American society who seek to pull back the safety net and dismantle government–though the possibility that it’s all posturing in order to maintain their material advantages can’t be ignored.
Whatever one thinks of Malcolm’s politics, it cannot be denied that he is a legendary autodidact. To go from a ninth-grade education to debating–and defeating–the luminaries of the white establishment in defense of his right, and the right of all Black people, to be fully-realized American citizens and human beings, is inspiring. I really wonder what things look like in the alternate universe where he somehow goes to law school.