MALCOLM OR MARTIN
I read James Cone's book, "Malcolm and Martin and America," about six months ago, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Opponents of affirmative action, for example, have lately been invoking Martin Luther King's "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" comment as supporting the assumption that King would've been against basing hiring or admissions on race. Michael Eric Dyson, on the cover of the PENN alumni magazine this month, speaks of an incendiary King that isn't so palatable to conservatives who prefer the bland, assimilationist version of the civil rights leader.
Indeed, according to Cone, Malcolm and Martin, while starting as polar opposites, moved to the middle in their later years. Malcolm represented the angry urban black of the north, Martin the integration-seeking rural black of the south. Martin, steeped in Christian theology and Gandhian principles, argued rightly that the response to violence was not more violence, but non-violence. Malcolm, not knowing any white people he could trust or back, argued rightly that when a man or race has been oppressed so terribly, he must act with vehemence and force.
Martin, of course, was more popular in the mainstream; Malcolm, relegated to the fringe, considered dangerous. But a funny thing happened along the way. Malcolm went to the Middle East and found white Muslims who he could be friends with. He loosened his belief that all whites were of the devil, and began to preach a more integrationist position. Martin, on the other hand, having conquered some civil rights injustices, realized just how entrenched others were. He became more fiery in his opposition of mainstream America's attitudes towards blacks and towards equality.
It is unfortunate that both their lives were cut short, as America would've greatly benefitted from the extra years and decades these men should've had to work out their positions and work towards social progress. I often wonder what Malcolm and Martin would be up to in this 21st century climate. And I often wonder which of the two I'd like more, be challenged by more, want to support more. I don't think either would be happy with the state of race relations in our country. I don't think either would say ours is a society where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than by the color of their skin.
I read James Cone's book, "Malcolm and Martin and America," about six months ago, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Opponents of affirmative action, for example, have lately been invoking Martin Luther King's "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" comment as supporting the assumption that King would've been against basing hiring or admissions on race. Michael Eric Dyson, on the cover of the PENN alumni magazine this month, speaks of an incendiary King that isn't so palatable to conservatives who prefer the bland, assimilationist version of the civil rights leader.
Indeed, according to Cone, Malcolm and Martin, while starting as polar opposites, moved to the middle in their later years. Malcolm represented the angry urban black of the north, Martin the integration-seeking rural black of the south. Martin, steeped in Christian theology and Gandhian principles, argued rightly that the response to violence was not more violence, but non-violence. Malcolm, not knowing any white people he could trust or back, argued rightly that when a man or race has been oppressed so terribly, he must act with vehemence and force.
Martin, of course, was more popular in the mainstream; Malcolm, relegated to the fringe, considered dangerous. But a funny thing happened along the way. Malcolm went to the Middle East and found white Muslims who he could be friends with. He loosened his belief that all whites were of the devil, and began to preach a more integrationist position. Martin, on the other hand, having conquered some civil rights injustices, realized just how entrenched others were. He became more fiery in his opposition of mainstream America's attitudes towards blacks and towards equality.
It is unfortunate that both their lives were cut short, as America would've greatly benefitted from the extra years and decades these men should've had to work out their positions and work towards social progress. I often wonder what Malcolm and Martin would be up to in this 21st century climate. And I often wonder which of the two I'd like more, be challenged by more, want to support more. I don't think either would be happy with the state of race relations in our country. I don't think either would say ours is a society where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than by the color of their skin.
Comments