The 44th Anniversary of the Assassination of Malcolm X

I stand corrected.

You can attempt to tell me what to do however, you cannot compel me to craft my commentary to your liking.

As I stated before, Roy, if you choose to do so, you may write your own article, approaching the subject matter in any manner you choose. 

Also, you are mistaken regarding El Hajj Malik El Shabazz's age, had he survived to this year.

He was born May 25, 1925. He would have been 84 this coming May. 

You are incorrect, Tikun.

Roy is not " .... encouraging ...." me to do anytthing.

He has been trying to impose his will upon me, which I will not allow him to do.

He has attempted to discuss my " .... psychological perspective .... " for posting my article, when he should question his own "psychological perspective" for lacking the ability to comprehend, this IS an opinion piece, which has been pointed out to him, at first three and now, ,five times at this thread.

My opinion.

Malcolm's travels in the Middle East and parts of Africa, in particular Ghana, during his pilgrimage, is a major key in deciphering some of the concerns of the U.S. government while he traveled abroad.

There was a true fear of Malcolm building alliances with fellow Muslims in other parts of the world. He may have been at the height of his notoriety at the time of his death.

His nationalism and his religion were separate in that he understood that, as he said early on, at that time, Black folks in America, weren't catching hell because they were Christian, Muslim or whatever faith, as the laws of the land were anti Colored, as Black people were known at the time.

His understanding meant religion shouldn't be seen as a barrier to accomplish the mission he had laid out for the so called Negro in America, as he set out to build the OAAU. 

I repeat, Roy, NowPublic allows all who post here to publish what they choose to publish, which is available to you as well.

You cannot impose your will upon me.

Please review the Code of Conduct adhered to at NowPublic.

Your personal attacks, attempting to 'dress me down' in this public forum, are unwarranted and against site policy.

From COINTELPRO: The Untold Story (Part I) :

According to the FBI's own records, agents have been directed to use "established local news media contacts" and other "sources available to the Seat of Government" to "disrupt or neutralize" organizations and to "ridicule and discredit" them.

Many counterintelligence techniques involve the use of paid informants. Informants become agents provocateurs by raising controversial issues at meetings to take advantage of ideological divisions, by promoting emnity with other groups, or by inciting the group to violent acts, even to the point of providing them with weapons.

Over the years, FBI provocateurs have repeatedly urged and initiated violent acts, including forceful disruptions of meetings and demonstrations, attacks on police, bombings, and so on, following an old strategy of Tsarist police director TC Zubatov: "We shall provoke you to acts of terror and then crush you."

A concise description of political warfare is given in a passage from a CIA paper entitled "Nerve War Against Individuals," referring to the overthrowing of the government of Guatemala in 1954:

The strength of an enemy consists largely of the individuals who occupy key positions in the enemy organization, as leaders, speakers, writers, organizers, cabinet members, senior government officials, army commanders and staff officers, and so forth. Any effort to defeat the enemy must therefore concentrate to a great extent upon these key enemy individuals.

If such an effort is made by means short of physical violence, we call it "psychological warfare." If it is focussed less upon convincing those individuals by logical reasoning, but primarily upon moving them in the desired direction by means of harassment, by frightening, confusing and misleading them, we speak of a "nerve war". 8

The COINTELPROs clearly met the above definition of "nerve wars," and, in the case of the American Indian Movement in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, the FBI conducted a full-fledged counterinsurgency war, complete with death squads, disappearances and assassinations, recalling Guatemala in more recent years.

The full story of COINTELPRO may never be told. The Bureau's files were never seized by Congress or the courts or sent to the National Archives. Some have been destroyed. Many counterintelligence operations were never committed to writing as such, or involve open investigations, and ex-operatives are legally prohibited from talking about them. Most operations remain secret until long after the damage has been done.

El Hajj Malik El Shabazz did not advocate violence.

He believed that when and if one was attacked, the person attacked had the basic human right to defend themselves.

He did not believe that he should suffer abuse at the hands of another to show others he was allegedly a better man as he allowed himself to be spat upon, kicked and beaten.

You may state your opinion regarding what has been written here however, personal attacks are not allowed at NowPublic, as stated in the Code of Conduct linked in the comment thread here.

You have crossed that line, unprovoked, on at least two occasions with your comments.

In the future, that tendency should be held in check.     

Yes, you can stubbornly refuse to do the whole job of reporting and pride yourself on your stubbornness or you can stop finding that beam in your neighbor's eye, having successfully found it, and admit to the beam in your own.

From a speech delivered by Malcolm X at Corn Hill Methodist Church, Rochester, New York, on February 16, 1965, 5 days before his death, entitled, Not Just An American Problem But a World Problem :

Since the civil rights bill - I used to see African diplomats at the UN crying out against the injustice that was being done to Black people in Mozambique, in Angola, the Congo, in South Africa, and I wondered why and how they could go back to their hotels and turn on the TV and see dogs biting Black people right down the block and policemen wrecking the stores of Black people with their clubs right down the block, and putting water hose on Black people with pressure so high it tears off our clothes, right down the block. And I wondered how they could talk all the talk about what was happeneing in Angola and Mozambique and all the rest of it and see it happen right down the block and get up on the podium in the UN and not say anything about it.

But I went and discussed it with some of them. And they said that as long as the Black man in America calls his struggle a struggle for civil rights - that the civil rights context, it's domestic and it remains within the jurisdiction of the United States. And if any of them open up their mouths to say anything about it, it's considered a violation of laws and rules of protocol. And the difference with the other people was that they didn't call their grievances "civil rights" grievances, they called them "human rights" grievances. "civil rights" are within the jurisdiction of the govenrment where they are involved. But "human rights" is part of the charter of the United Nations.

All the nations that signed the charter of the UN came up with the Declaration of Human Rights and anyone who classifies his grievances under the label of "human rights" violations, those grievances can then be discussed by people all over the world. For as long as you call it "civil rights" your only allies can be the people in the next community, many of whom are responsible for your grievance. But when you call it "human rights" it becomes international. And then you can take your troubles to the World Court. You can take them before the world. And anybody anywhere on this earth can become your ally.

So, one of the first steps that we became involved in, those of us who got into the Organization of Afro-American Unity, was to come up with a program that would make our grievances international and make the world see our problem was no longer a Negro problem or an American problem but a human problem. A problem for humanity. And a problem which should be attacked by all elements of humanity. A problem that was so complex that it is impossible for Uncle Sam to solve it himself and therefore we want to get into a body or conference with people who are in such positions that they can help us get some kind of adjustment for this situation before it gets so explosive that no one can handle it.

Thank you.

- From Malcolm X - The Last Speeches 

Pathfinder Press

As this piece is clearly marked opinion, the author is free to put her personal opinion in to the story, and while some may not agree with the view presented here, this is not a news piece - it's an editorial piece.

It's fine to address the issues in the piece and discuss them, but not to accuse the author of having an agenda or only selective reporting on an issue when it is their own opinion piece.

Please be civil and respectful of everyone's point of view and please don't presume to know about why someone chose to write a story in a certain way when you know nothing about them.

Thanks.

Powerful piece, a lesson in dedication and intelligence, and diary of the road taken, hard and painful. I love the way you write and I guess everyone is welcome to their own opinions and interpretations. Thanks for yours.

Roy, "Get over it and put in all the relevant aspects..." as you said in an earlier comment, is not "comment(ing) on the intent...".

You are not commenting on their intent, you are asking for, and insisting upon, changes in that person's post content and their opinion, and expressing your wish that what you see as being "relevant" be "put in" or written to go along with your idea of 'the whole picture'.

Unacceptable, sorry.

Your piece distorts black involvement in Malcolm X's death. You had a similar objection to me pointing out that "Roots" left out black involvement as the primary purveyors of slaves in the great slave markets of Africa as irrelevant to your "point" about covering up history.

From the Smoking Gun: "On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was shot to death as he delivered a speech in Manhattan's Audobon Ballroom. The following March, three men -- Talmadge Hayer, Norman Butler, and Thomas Johnson -- were convicted of murdering the 39-year-old black leader. Though prosecutors suggested at trial that the slaying was plotted as "an object lesson for Malcolm's followers," no direct evidence linked the Nation of Islam -- from which Malcolm had publicly broken -- to the killing, though that speculation still thrives."

Further, from the mouth of Farrakhan himself: (CBS):

"Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan admits in a 60 Minutes interview broadcast Sunday and reported on Wednesday's CBS Evening News that his incendiary rhetoric played a role in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader Malcolm X.

Farrakhan makes the statements to Malcolm X’s daughter, Atallah Shabazz, and 60 Minutes Correspondent Mike Wallace.

"I may have been complicit in words that I spoke leading up to February 21 [1965]," Farrakhan tells Shabazz and Wallace. "I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being."

Shabazz later issued a statement thanking Farrakhan for acknowledging his role and said: "I wish him peace." However, she did not forgive him.

Malcolm X was only 39 years old when he was killed. This month, he would have been 75.

The former Malcolm Little was Farrakhan's mentor in the Nation of Islam—for a time, they both believed that the white man was evil and that the black and white races should live separately.

In 1964, Malcolm X revealed publicly that Elijah Mohammed, the leader of the Nation of Islam, was guilty of impregnating several of his teenage secretaries, in direct violation of his own preachings against sex outside of marriage.

Farrakhan was outraged. He called Malcolm X a traitor and wrote, two months before the killing, that "such a man is worthy of death."

Three men with ties to the Nation of Islam were convicted in the slaying in the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem on Feb. 21, 1965.

Shabazz, then 6, witnessed the shooting, as did Malcom X's wife and other children.

Farrakhan has denied ordering the assassination but later admitted to having "helped create the atmosphere" that led to it."

I was there.

Tikun, I cannot buy that, sorry. I find it hard to accept that anyone may comment the opinion of others in order to "challenge them to reach higher". That implies that the recipient of the comment does not go as "high" as the sender considers himself to be himself.

In other words, it's condescending at the very least, and arrogant at worst.

I do not agree with everything that KH said in her post, and pointed that out in a comment, but I would fight tooth and nail for her right to post what she correctly tagged as being "opinion".

Opinion posts here do not have to "come clean". They express one side of the story if the writer sees fit to relate it. I did not agree with much of what was said on Israel/Gaza for example. Result? I wrote my own opinion post, and defended my point of view. You praised that post for its "honesty" and "courageous" aspect, as you saw it. Am I to take it that you said that about my post only because you agreed with it, but that your comments here are couched in the terms they are because you disagree with her post?

As someone who only writes opinion posts, I object to people asking me to "tell the whole story", or "prove it". If I did, it wouldn't be "opinion" but "analysis" or "news". This is becoming a worrying tendency here on NP.

And, at the end of the day, putting up links or sources would not be any more true for all that, seeing as one man's "facts", are another man's "lies". 

"Yes, I can" to borrow a phrase from our new prez. Your piece is a distortion. The gov't's involvement is an issue and Farrakhan's racism, and homicidal rhetoric and Malcolm X's daughter's opinion is part of the truth of the situation.

You do exactly as you accused others of doing when the National Park Service wanted to close those tunnels and deny that the slaves lived there.

No one reading your piece would have any idea that the plot was anything but the moral fault of the US government. That is a gross distortion.

I agree wholeheartedly Karen,

that no-one should tell you how or what to write (I go nuclear when people lay that on me lol!), but may I just respectfully say that I too was rather surprised to get the impression that you were linking him to the muslim world, particularly given that at the time he lived and died ("The climate of the era" as you write), that was not really an issue. His life was spent, and he is deservedly known for, battling courageously for Afro-American Unity and against racial discrimination in the United States.

Thanks...

Thank you, Karen, for posting excerpts from the Not Just An American Problem but a World Problem speech.  I also think this paragraph in his speech provides insights to Malcolm X's perspectives on human rights and the degradation of African Americans. 

"We realized at the same time we had a problem in this society that went beyond religion. And it was for that reason we set up the Organization of Afro-American Unity in which anybody in the community could participate in an action program designed to bring about complete recognition and respect of Black people as human beings."

On Opinion Post you are correct Fripouille, not on Historical events nor on Facts. Objectivity is most important and truth rather then political agenda. Then it would be propaganda and not worth the news.

In that era many People where assassinated, both Black and white leaders. It was an era of great change and great hopes as well as one of great questions and reforms.

What Roy said here is correct though in part. Facts are often twisted and distorted. 

I flagged this post because his assassination and life needs to be remembered however it should be remembered as it was and not has some would like it to be for their own agenda. 

No, Karen, I wouldn't leave out the CoIntelPro program. I wouldn't leave out the Farrakhan story. I wouldn't leave out Elijah Muhammed's break with his father. I wouldn't leave out Malcolm X's letter from Mecca about the extraordinary high he felt being with white people that he never had previously believed possible. I wouldn't leave out Malcolm X's daughter's attempt on Farrakhan's life and wouldn't leave out his apology.

What you are doing is selective reporting that let's you decide what is important, and takes the reader out of command of his own interpretive process.

You do that because you are afraid that what will be thought will not correspond to what you feel the most important truth is, which, for you, is what was done to your race and not what your race has done to itself.

Your reporting selectively is what distinguishes what has been deemed "modern liberalism" from old-fashioned liberalism.

Hi Paschen,

"As it was" is a subjective statement, if I may say so. Your version, or KH's or anyone else's, or mine, are not "as it was". They are our takes on it.  There is no single "as it was", just opinions and interpretations on it.

The post is tagged "opinion", which means one person's point of view.  

I personally am becoming fed up with people criticising opinion posts on "the whole story" grounds. If you dig deeper my friend, these attacks are beginning to take on the aspect of attacks on free speech and expression.......Opinion is an essential part of journalism, and cannot be expected to express both sides of an argument, much less what is very debatably called "as it was"...

Objectivity in an opinion piece is impossible - that's why it's called an opinion piece I think.

Anyway, at the request of the author I am closing this thread - thanks all for your comments here.

I do feel that Roy has some honest criticism about the piece. From what I understand he is complaining about your unwillingness to share the ENTIRE story with our readers that may not have been old enough to have lived through those years.

I actively participated  for racial equality and participated in  anti-war demonstrations including getting arrested to many times to count. however, As much as Malcolm spoke to a segment of the Black community he was a very threatening voice to whites including many that participated in civil rights activities. I was very fortunate to have been next to Dr. Martin Luther King when he gave a speech in NY. His was a voice of reason and courage. Not one of separation. He was often criticized for his remarks by Malcolm and others that took a more radical approach to the civil rights struggle. In fact, Dr. King was trashed by many on the left but he never gave up on his principles.

The US goverment did spy on many of us and I do have a dossier at the FBI from that time. However, not to include the WHOLE truth about Malcolm X does not really provide an educational experience for all of our readers and in fact sets back the truth of our history by revising or eliminating those parts that are not so pretty.

Always remember the past for therein lies the future, if forgotten ....

- the Akan concept of Sankofa

Let's put is this way, Karen.

If you read the story I posted about food, you find out that food additves have mutagenic properties. So, the anti-additive people cheered Ames, who proved this.

But Ames did not stop there. He proved that food causes cancer, too.

You like selective reporting, as I said, because you want to only shed light on the aspects of the situation that you are comfortable with.

Many of the posters here have a similar psychological perspective. They are not comfortable dealing with the limits on their perspective. Get over it and put in all the relevant aspects and look at how oppressed people become complicit in their oppression, which is true and was true even for the CoIntelpro program.

Opinion pieces by definition have an agenda, AmyJudd. That is called "editorialization" and the objections to the opinion piece are further opinion pieces, which also have an agenda. 

Since all opinion pieces have an intent, an agenda, it is perfectly correct to comment on that intent, that agenda, as people will do to me.

Yes, I have an agenda, and  that is, as you see in the piece on mutagens in food, or in my post about gay rights, or about Gaza and Israel, that all sides get their good and bad spotlighted and that no one gets unnecessarily demonized or idolized.

Roy, having one's post "review(ed)" by comment is fine in my humble opinion. That's what comment is. But insisting that someone presents all points of view in an opinion post is another. That's what editorial control of opinion is.

And the difference is far from being semantic, as you surely know.....

I doesn't matter what road you took, all roads, (whether they were with Malcolm X, Martin Luther King or the white racist idiots of the South), inevitably led to President Obama. I wonder if Malcolm X would be surprised at the outcome or did he kind of know?? Seems to me that to be a leader in the American Black movement of that time you did always have to keep your eyes on the prize. Its a legacy of strength and resolve against ignorance and violence and in the end, we all won. Yes I know, there is a long way to go still and many have paid the price along the way, but it seems to be starting to turn around and who knows what the future may bring. Thanks and good post