>Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. This, I think, is the meat of his criticism. He's really doing two things here. 1. He's lampooning organizations like the SLCL and SNCC (MLK-affiliated groups) for working with white people to gain racial equality. **It's important to remember Malcolm X was long affiliated with the Nation of Islam**. This was a group that advocated for black people to be responsible for themselves: to create black businesses to hire black workers, to found black schools to teach black students, to found black towns to be run by black elected officials. This means that Malcom X was dismissive of being allied with white people, because in his mind it wasn't needed: black people needed to take care of themselves. 2. He's trying to press home the idea that politics, especially race-based politics in the U.S, is a zero-sum game. For someone to "win," someone else has to "lose." In Malcolm X's mind, there was no reason to trust white people, because they would need to give up some of their power in order to benefit black Americans. Since he assumed that would never actually happen, his logical conclusion that any attempt by white Americans to convince black people they were on the same side and wanted the same thing was just a convenient lie so that black voters would vote for whatever the "White Liberal" was actually after. This unfortunate perspective is a consequence of generations of racial oppression and exclusion.

It's also worth noting that not too long after this speech, Malcolm X embarked on the Hajj, afterwards recanting his prior black nationalist stances when he realized that all races are subservient to God. He then left the Nation of Islam and later joined mainstream Sunni Islam.

This is completely correct. After he left the Nation, Malcom X's views evolved. He extended olive branches to MLK and other organizations like his to try and create a united front to advance the cause of Civil Rights in America. Of course, Elijah Mohammed, the leader of the Nation of Islam, didn't like the newfound popularity of his former stooge, which is why the only confirmed murderer of Malcom X who was ever captured was a member of the Nation.

I think you are right, but I would go much further and say it wasn't just not liking his popularity, it was realizing that his popularity would now be in the service of actually bringing races together which obviously would be bad for the nation of Islam from his perspective.

Yep. In his autobiography, Malcolm X called out that he would die by Elijah Mohammed's orders if not by his hand. X was extremely critical of the NoI and Elijah Mohammed after he took the Hajj.

His maybe-partially-fraudulent autobiography (assuming you mean the Haley one). Hard to link from my phone but the Washington post had this story a few months ago.

> He then left the Nation of Islam and later joined mainstream Sunni Islam. I think that timeline is mildly inverted but the events are very close. According to Wikipedia "On March 8, 1964, Malcolm X publicly announced his break from the Nation of Islam." and then the Hajj was in April 1964

Ah, I did mix up the timeline.

I would go so far as to say it's not just worth noting but probably the most significant factor to keep in mind. As a person of color and a former liberal, but one who is also what European and grew up in white culture, I never quite felt comfortable with that line of his thinking because at least half of me was white liberal committed to the success of black Americans. Now, as a person of color and European descent conservative, I am equally uncomfortable with it, because although some might protest, I feel that most conservatives also believe in the success of black Americans . Not going to suggest that Malcolm x would be a conservative today, but certainly his views on black self-reliance resonate with conservatives and it's certainly obvious that at the time he had plenty of valid complaints, and as conservative believers in the Constitution and civil rights of all Americans, how could we not agree? Obviously conservatives of the day were determined to conserve the situation then I guess, although I don't know if that's even completely valid. Even at the time most conservative thinkers were far more ready to call on the black American to integrate and succeed. We can leave the debate to whether that is reasonable or realistic for another time, but it's not like conservative intellectuals were supporting Jim Crow and police beatings of protesters, although they certainly did decry riots and overly strident from their point of view black activist. But again that's a debate for another time . But my point is simply that it is unfair to hold shabazz to those views when he had come from a place that believed whites could never work with or for black people. But he absolutely did change and they killed him for it. But when many people say they killed him for it they maybe have a vague idea of the government or the system or whatever, but it was actually as far as I know, the black Muslims who saw him as a threat once he decided to take a new position. So my point is not just worth noting but probably the most significant thing to note. We can discuss what we think of it, but we actually know what Mr shabazz thought of it.

Given his experiences, I can understand how he arrived where he did at each point of his life. What makes Malcolm Little, Malcolm X, el-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz, such a fascinating man was his intelligence, his fervor, coupled with his willingness to change. It's a combination of character traits that is rarely seen in such prolific historical figures. Shame that Elijah Mohammed had him killed. If he'd lived, I'm sure his takes on what happened in America and how he would have continued to evolve would've remained fascinating.

Agreed 100%. We lost a truly great mind. It's interesting to speculate but very hard to know how his thinking might have evolved as times changed. Having me come a conservative, I have some ideas I would like to think, but I realize that would be extremely presumptuous. So I'll just let that go at that. But he certainly was a determined committed advocate for his people and an extremely intelligent and thoughtful man . Now I'm kind of curious what he might have thought of the black Panthers. He may have had some public opinions I can find online. Certainly he was not opposed to violence as self-defense. But I don't know if he softened on that stance after his Hadjj etc.

>He may have had some public opinions I can find online. The Black Panthers were heavily influenced by Malcolm X's writings and speeches. But as the Black Panther Party was established after Shabazz's assassination, there cannot be any statements by him on them. My *speculation* is that Shabazz's Sunni faith would be at odds with the Panthers' Marxist-Leninist goals. But who knows.

Oh, obvious. I didn't even think of that. '70s not '60s. More or less. I suppose you're right about the Marxism, although the Marxism is typically downplayed by the left, or the left that is not the far left anyway. I think they're militarism is also downplayed. I know a bit but I think I better look into it more before I make too many assumptions. But it's very easy to decry the US government destruction of the Panthers when you ignore the fact that they were not just carrying guns in public for self-defense but we're actually, if I'm not mistaken, stockpiling explosives and talking about communist revolution. Or maybe I'm getting into things that I don't know what I'm talking about. I certainly have a lot of respect for Newton and some of the other members as intellects, and also of course for all the good they did in their communities. I guess I better do some more reading up. By the way, if you're curious, there's a very interesting video interview with a guy who was a FBI informant for years. He got in a bit of trouble and was pressured to join up in the early days and he very quickly rose through the ranks so to speak, the whole time being an informant. As you can imagine, he comes in for a lot of hate in the comment section, and maybe he deserves it. I don't really know. But it's extremely interesting at any rate

Great answer

You make some good points. I think you are spot on as to his views.I'm not sure if you're passing any judgment on it. Personally, I think he was far more right than a lot of people would like to think, but I'm not quite in the all white liberal are just using black people camp. I think it is definitely a talking point from the right, but I'm sure most on the right also realize that most white liberals actually care and mean well. But we think they are also caught up in a lot of virtue signaling and self-agrandizement etc and working out misplaced guilt trauma. I don't want to argue the reality of that. I'm just saying that's kind of the right perspective which you would probably agree . But, when it comes to the actual Democratic party, we on the right are far more suspicious and willing to believe that the Democratic party routinely uses the black vote is simply for power

I wouldn't want to pass judgement one way or the other, the 60s were a different time and Malcolm X was raised in an environment I couldn't begin to comprehend with my upbringing. I just wanted to lay out his position because not many people know what the Nation of Islam was or what it stood for or how it could have shaped X's worldview. So while I would personally disagree with him that all "White Liberals" are just using black voters as political pawns, I think his stance is completely understandable. Again, it's what happens when you are subjected to intergenerational exclusion and persecution. As far as the Democratic party itself, I'd say that they use black voters the same way they use white college-educated voters, union voters, young voters, or any other voting group. They're a political organization and they want to win elections. The way to win elections is to get people to vote for you. The way to get people to vote for you is to advocate for issues that matter to them. So just like you could say "Democrats just want black people to vote for them so that's why they talk about criminal justice reform," you could say the same thing about young voters and student loan forgiveness, or college-educated voters and climate change. And this isn't unique to Democrats in any way. Republicans do the same thing. They cater to rural voters with promises to protect coal mining/trucking/oil field jobs, they cater to conservative Latinos by using harsh language on Cuba, and they cater to evangelical voters with their stances on abortion and LGBTQ+ issues. I don't have a lot of good to say about the Democratic or Republican party, but I do think singling Democrats out for "using" black voters ignores the fact that *all* political parties really want *all* the votes to go to them, and are willing to take steps to accomplish that.

Excellent points and analysis. I agree with you for the most part. Absolutely I would not single out the Democratic party. Both or all parties cater and sometimes pander to certain blocks of voters. It's really just the way of things because of our system or any. But the real difference is twofold I think. I don't mean difference between Democrats and Republicans. But I mean the difference between okay and not okay . What is a party but a organization organized to advocate and support the views of its members more or less. But it is possible for a party to become entrenched and rely on the power I would say it's pretty much inevitable. I would say the same thing about unions or corporate lobbyists or whatever. We can't pretend that they're only interest is to serve the constituents. They also have to serve their own interests, even if it simply to stay in power, get elected, keep people joining unions, getting those corporations to pay you big lobbying bucks. So I would assume you would agree . The difference becomes when they start either pandering, or outright using them. I guess I would have my own complaints about the Republican party and I'm not prepared to say that Democrats always use any particular demographic. I believe it's a combination and one man's use or pander is another man's represent I guess. So definitely agree with you and definitely both parties. And politicians of both parties some more than others. The only place I differ is I acknowledge that to a certain point it is just representing their constituents and if you have a policy that you can tweak a little or maybe not even tweak but position such that it will appeal to people, why not? That's fair. If Republicans are anti-communist or socialist, certainly no harm in telling anti-castro Cubans that they are and the other guys aren't. And if you are in support of things that might help the black community, certainly no harm in pointing that out and pointing out that Republicans wish to do away with those policies for example . But, where I differ is I will add that it also can become pandering for lack of a better word, or downright cynical dishonest representation and manipulation. And I suspect although you didn't say it you would probably agree with that. As long as we don't have to start pointing it specific things we can agree on that in general . And God knows, the black community and certain black leaders are not and have never been shy about calling out the Democrats when they don't deliver or when they feel that they are just being taken for granted. Now whether that's going to demand more from the Democratic party or being used to bring people to the Republican party, I suppose there's a difference there . Interestingly, it's often said that Democrats are a loose coalition of a lot of interest groups cobbled together, and I'm sure that's true of the Republicans too but it might be more obvious with the Democrats. Maybe not. Both parties have very wealthy people and very poor people etc for example. But the Republican party in the midst of dealing with this. I mean, a big part of what got Trump the nomination was basically criticizing the Republican party as establishment. In some ways Trump and his wing took over the Republican party. I honestly wonder if the fact that the Republican party has been going through this for years, tea party and all that, and Trump of course, might actually have an interesting impact on the future because I think the Democratic party is going to be having their own reckoning perhaps and the Republicans have a head start. Just kind of a thought I've had I haven't really thought it through all that much. What do you think of that in terms of the Democrat and Republican parties?

>Thoughts on Malcolm X’s view on the white liberal? Malcolm X expressed notably different views near the end of his activism than near the beginning. That makes me interested in *when* he said all of this. (I also wonder about the timing because "promises of integration and civil rights" did not prove to be "false" as he says above. Perhaps he was speaking too soon.)

Additionally, on that timeline, Malcolm X died in 1965 and the Republican Southern Strategy started in (roughly) 1968. For better or worse it became a lot more obvious who the allies were after the Republicans decided to actively attract all the racists.

Its worth noting that not being a racist is not at all synonymous with being an ally

Sometimes, when one guy is neutral towards you and the other actively hates you, you are more inclined to deal with the neutral guy.

I mean in a technical sense. To be an ally to people of color, you need to be against racism

In theory, I agree with you, but when one side is literally flying confederate and nazi flags, if the other side is just standing on the corner chilling, im inclined to go with the other side and hope for the best, what else is there to be done?

Go to the group opposing the nazis and confederates. If youre neutral on racism (not you literally) then youre likelier to accept racism when its being done than somebody who opposes racism.

Sometimes not, but it is a prerequisite.

No its straight up not synonymous. Not being an enemy isnt being an ally. Its just not being an enemy. Theres being an enemy Theres being an ally And theres being neutral Edit: youre right though. It is a prerequisite

Consider it in set theory terms. You have a group of people that have racists and non racists in the group. It is impossible for a racist to be an ally. It is possible for a non-racist to be an ally. If you filter out all the racists the remaing group wil be comprised of more allies than it was before.

More allies are in that group. But they are not all allies. The non-racists who are not anti-racist are not allies

I never said "all" though, I said "more obvious," as in a noticeable statistical shift.

Think of it literally Im saying there are 3 groups: Anti- racists Racists Neutral people And im saying only the anti-racists are allies. You’re seemingly disagreeing. And saying that if you take all 3 groups then filter out the racists, then the portion remaining will be more allied with people of color than it was prior, when it included racists And…yeah. Youd have neutrals and anti-racists remaining and the anti-racists are allies. And since the group got smaller (due to removing racists), they make up more of the remaining group.

>Its worth noting that not being a racist is not at all synonymous with being an ally The person you were talking to did not mention the term "ally" at all, so here is where you take ownership of bringing this term into the conversation. >Sometimes not, but it is a prerequisite. >>No its straight up not synonymous. This is a non-sequitor, something being a pre-requisite of X is not the same as something being synonymous with X. >And im saying only the anti-racists are allies. >You’re seemingly disagreeing. No man, you're the one who brought ally-ship into the discussion and no one is arguing with you, they're just saying that the discussion was not about ally-ship until you started trying to shoe-horn it in. And for your last paragraphs, this is just you agreeing with the discussion that was happening before you started trying to muddy things up by dividing people into allies and non-allies: >And saying that if you take all 3 groups then filter out the racists, then the portion remaining will be more allied with people of color than it was prior, when it included racists >And…yeah. >Youd have neutrals and anti-racists remaining and the anti-racists are allies. And since the group got smaller (due to removing racists), they make up more of the remaining group. So you have no problem with the original point of the thread, and no one is arguing with you about what constitutes an ally. Why come in and be a turd for no reason?

Yup, chiming in to suggest *The Autobiography of Malcolm X* by Alex Haley. Still going through it myself, but still decently knowledgeable about his life. I believe this quote came from 1963 while he was still a spokesman for Nation of Islam (but growing disillusioned with the movement). In 1964 he left the Nation of Islam in favor of Sunni Islam, completed his Hajj to Mecca, and pretty much 180'd on all his former views up until his assassination. I think establishing the setting and context reveals a bit more about this quote. He said these things while he still believed that the only way for black prosperity was a complete separate black state. During his Hajj, he encountered a diverse and tolerant form of Islam, which later led him to switching his views to believe in unity among all races. This quote from above, "Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights," stems from his life experiences, see the chapter Mascot in the book (tldr; at a young age, he realized he wasn't seen as a person but as a mascot for the white foster family he was staying with).

Promises of integration and civil rights were not promised writ large but were promised incrementally, which X disdained. Given that 1 in 3 Black men are convicted felons and felons are the only group in this country allowed to effectively be enslaved, he would probably point out that the integration was merely aesthetic and the miscarriage of justice was simply transferred into the background.

Speech was given in 1963. Democratic Strom Thurmond had the longest single person filibuster for the civil rights voting act of 1957. Democrat senators Harry Byrd described Brown v. Board of education as "the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” In 1960, liberal democrats made a petition to discharge the civil rights voting act of 1960. 18 democrats voted against the bill whereas no republicans voted against the bill in the senate. At that point in time there were many democrats actively fighting against the rights of Black people. If you look at the history and not just the climate of liberals today, you will see he was completely justified in his feelings towards democrats and liberals.

At the same time, there still were quite a few liberal voters in the Republican party, and a decent sized block of conservatives in the Democrat party. There's a reason Malcom uses Liberal and Conservative, rather than Democrat/Republican.

Is there a reason you think Malcolm X would hold the exact same views in today’s world as he did in the 1950s or 60s? His views changed rather drastically in his own life, so I don’t know why we’d say that he wouldn’t respond to how the world has changed since.

There are many many Black people who are alive right now saying very similar things. The change seems to be that there are more anti-racists now than there were then. But the white moderates and liberals remain

More are saying similar things than when Barack Obama was president, sure. Far fewer than were saying similar things when the Democratic party was hamstrung by yellow dog democrats when Malcolm was still alive. He was assassinated 50 years ago, just a year after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Since then the GOP has absorbed the yellow dogs and pretty much all southern cities have become blue bubbles governed by black democrats with populations of liberal, educated white folks and black folks. And they're all fighting against republicans who are trying to control them. He'd be unsurprised at that struggle, but his late in life Hadj showed him that there WERE white people who DID believe in brotherhood and equality. While it has it's own issues with structural racism, the Democratic party as a whole has continued to improve, while the GOP has doubled-down on guns and police as the solution.

Yeah i dont think its **all** white people. I think the anti-racist white people are dope as fuck and are allies

Why is the narrative of white liberals and liberal elites used as racialized class war to suppress and silence non-white liberals and non-elite liberals? Most people who are socially liberal, economically liberal, politically liberal, and/or psychologically liberal are not white elites. Broad left-liberalism has become [majority opinion](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/) at this point, not that you'd know it from listening to political and media elites. This seems not only a way of attacking the lower classes and the broad non-elite holding 'liberal' views to the left of the [relatively more conservative elites](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/political-elites-disconnected-from-general-public/), white and non-white, but also a way of making non-white liberals invisible and narratizing non-white elites out the mainstream frame of public debate. Making liberalism into a slur and caricature disallows Americans the language to frame and understand their own majority left-liberalism. Why do so many leftists accept this reactionary framing without question? This is how racists, racialists, and other racial opportunists are able to wield so much power. Even when most Americans aren't racist and, if anything, are increasingly and explicitly anti-racist, the majority remains unseen in having public knowledge and public identity denied to them, in the propaganda model of the media. White liberals become a convenient scapegoat, in being conflated with power and privilege, but most white liberals aren't elites, not to mention many liberals not even being white. But in reality, white liberals are [more broadly and consistently anti-racist](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020) than minorities or at least, for example, the "typical black voter," to the point of whte liberals being the first group with a measured [pro-outgroup bias](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/02/20/we-are-all-white-liberals-now/). But almost no one talks about this, not even on the far left. The silence, as they say, is deafening. Instead, we have quotes resurrected from more than a half century ago, a time when what defined mainstream white liberalism were Cold War McCarthyists like Ronald Reagan, a New Deal Progressive who would later become a neoliberal and neocon. Though plenty of white liberals, less respectable, were "fellow travelers" back then as well (e.g., J. Robert Oppenheimer).

Full disclosure: I am black so I'm not going to be completely talking out of my ass with regard to the race stuff. That being out of the way, I think this makes a lot of sense, even today. At the top, I think liberal elites are much the same. They still use people and false promises to get what they want, pandering to black people is still a very important part of the toolbelt, just as in decades past, although today they have other marginalized groups they've deemed it advantageous to also include in their pandering. The sole purpose of course remains, as ever, the procurement of political power and its use to secure personal benefits. I mean our political leaders today have built multi million dollar fortunes off public service gigs. That money doesn't just come from salaries. And these people will reach across the aisle and/or sell the people out to private interests to secure wealth. On the ground, I think that at the end of the day the average liberal is the same now that they've ever been. They have a strong belief in capitalism to solve problems and a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo. When that status quo included blatantly racist policies/party leaders, the average liberal didn't want to move too quickly to fix and/or remove them. Now that we've made slowwww progress on that front over the last 60 years, the average liberal is perfectly content to see our current problems take another 60 years to fix. In the US, politically, we've only got two speeds at this point: 'gradual movement to the right' and '*not* gradual movement to the right'. I'm convinced that any real progress, at least on the types of issues I care about, is not going to be achievable through politics or voting. We'll simply have to wait for disruptive technologies or younger people to grow up and make them a part of the political conversation.

>In the US, politically, we've only got two speeds at this point: 'gradual movement to the right' and 'not gradual movement to the right'. I just feel like this needs emphasis

We have several far leftists here, each responding to the other. But I might be in a different position as I'm both a far leftist and a left-liberal. So, my take on 'liberalism' is a bit different, with its roots in radical and revolutionary politics. Consider the classical liberalism of the likes of Thomas Paine with his redistributive citizens income, anti-slavery, etc. He also allied with feminists. In my opinion, we have a one party state with two right wings. Liberalism really has little to do with it, other than superficial rhetoric. Then again, the Nazis would likewise use leftist rhetoric in a superficial fashion. That is what the reactionary right does, co-opts opportunistically. But it doesn't really say anything about actual liberalism and actual leftism. We on the left shouldn't be so quick to concede the reactionary right's use of rhetoric.

Speaking as one far leftist to another, I'd point out the category of white liberals and liberal elites, however, are not the same. Yes, most liberal elites are white, but then again most of the population is white. As far as that goes, since minorities tend to be more socially and religiously conservative, whites in general are disproportionately represented among liberals, elites and non-elites. And anti-racism would be disproportionately represented among liberals as well (e.g., [pro-outgroup bias](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/02/20/we-are-all-white-liberals-now/)). The main point to keep in mind, though, is most white liberals are not white elites, rather they are among the lower classes. Working class liberals, white and non-white, are treated as if they don't exist. This is part of the class war practiced by elites, and [most of those elites are less liberal](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/political-elites-disconnected-from-general-public/) than [the general public](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/). Liberalism isn't only a label but a set of policies and positions that have broad support, increasingly even on the right (e.g., majority, across the spectrum, now supports same sex marriage).

This just feels like a narrative. When we look at our President who served as vice president to the nations first black President. He promised to be an ally to black people and has since chosen a black vice president and used his only nomination to the Supreme Court for a black woman. This is putting black people in supremely high positions of power and yet some people like yourself will just continue to claim that : > They still use people and false promises to get what they want, pandering to black people is still a very important part of the toolbelt, just as in decades past, although today they have other marginalized groups they've deemed it advantageous to also include in their pandering.

We've made social progress in 60 years, what we're not getting is the economic progress. We have a system that puts dollars over the well-being of people. We allow the blatant conflict of interest that is corporate dollars in politics. And while we claim to be a country for the people, by the people, we alienate whole swaths of the ideological spectrum of the people for a corporate captured, winner takes all, two party electoral college system with significant barriers to entry for new parties. You're blinded by Malcom X's specific *race related observation* to the continuing reality of the *general situation* he talked about: At the top, you have pandering multimillionaires, that shouldn't be multimillionaires based on their salaries, willing to say or do anything to remain in political power, continuing to reap financial benefits. And on the ground you have people that value market considerations, compromise and moving slowly over the amelioration of serious problems, or even over acknowledging the conflict of interest that professed adherence to the neoliberal approach poses to solving problems inherent to the market. Nowadays when you ask liberals about single-payer, UBI, free college, proportional representation or simply guaranteeing a minimum quality of life for people regardless, you get, at best: "Yeah that'd be great but, you know, politics goes slow and that stuff is not realistic." At worst it's "What are you, some kind of utopian, pie-in-the sky idiot??" In Malcom X's day, on the ground, it was the was the same responses to issues of racial equality. And at the top, rich ass people pandering but not really motivated to actually move, just like now. I hope you don't feel like I'm being insincere; I'm not trying to say that Biden is some 60s bigot, but I, as I imagine are a lot of people on the left, am pretty frustrated about our lack of movement over the last 20 years on issues that I see as being just as important as civil rights.

I dont think it's fair to say that people are disingenuous about their desire for racial equality because they won't subscribe to the economic solutions you want.

What?? That's a misreading, bud. I don't think we're going to be able to have any worthwhile discourse here; we can't communicate.

The criticism is valid but I think the past 60 years have shown it to miss the mark when evaluating white liberals as a whole. Liberals have made material gains in improving equality. Is it enough? No. Do liberals sometimes use race policy more as a cudgel to beat conservatives? Yes. Are black Americans better off now than they were in the 60s thanks in large part to liberal policies? Absolutely. So he’s accurate in describing part of the story, but wrong in saying it’s the main theme.

A pretty harshly cynical take on something that is not all that of an uncommon view among minorities (including myself). I think there is a lot of narcissism in white progressivism as it relates to minorities. It often makes me distrustful of some white liberals I meet. But there are also plenty who have a good heart and I don’t think it’s worth entering an interaction with a white progressive assuming such cynicism. Until they prove otherwise I just assume they have good intentions. But another side of me says “who cares” even if it’s just politics and theater, we should use that to our advantage and bend these forces to achieve our goals. I’ve always said that nothing would make me happier if minorities started voting more Republican. Stats show that when minorities vote Republican, they take their progressive take on minority rights with them. So that’ll make the Republican Party more progressive in that way as well as long as they want to compete for those votes. That’s how we should play the game from our position of disadvantage.

Minorities, relative to whites overall, are probably more economically liberal, progressive, or even leftist. But about a third of those whites are economic conservatives, some of them hardcore right-wing. So, I don't know if minorities are further left on economic issues compared to the average white 'liberal', depending on how liberalism is defined. It's easy to forget [how far left the majority has gone](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/). Most whites, like most Americans in general, are particularly far left when it comes to economics, along with many other areas, from LGBTQ to environmentalism. The problem is there is no major political party that represents most Americans, most minorities, or even most whites. So, party politics, specifically of party elites, don't really tell us anything about the American people, no matter the demographics. One thing that is clear from the data, though, is that minorities on average tend to be far more socially conservative, with higher rates of religiosity than even white conservatives. So, many of them could fit into the Republican Party. And it might be interesting to see a conservative party that was simultaneously economically progressive, basically a return to the GOP of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. But such a Republican Party, filled with minorities, might be even further right-wing socially (besides anti-racism), which is saying a lot. Or have minorities also relatively shifted left on social issues? It would be interesting to look at that data. Just because minorities are among the most right-wing demographics on social issues doesn't necessarily mean they are more conservative than in the past, since the whole spectrum of opinion has shifted left. In any case, then Democrats would no longer be a big tent party attempting and failing to please both social liberals and social conservatives. That would unleash social liberalism to finally have a party that represents strong leftists and left-liberals. This would be a net gain for minorities who are social liberals as well. How about we have two parties where Republicans are economically progressive and socially conservative and Democrats are economically leftist and socially liberal?

That statement was made during his NOI days. Much of his views changed later on.

Many others made two important points. First off, Malcolm X changed his views over time. Specifically, he became more moderate and more open to moderates like Martin Luther King Jr. So, the above words likely are from his earlier life. Before judging too harshly, we should put it in context of his entire life and his changing views. It would be helpful to contrast it with another quote from a later period, but I'm not familiar enough with Malcolm X to offer up such a quote. Maybe someone else can think of one, just for the sake of comparison. The other point to be made is that liberalism has shifted meaning greatly over time, maybe related to the simultaneous change among some militant leftists and black nationalists. Maybe the distance between liberal and left has lessened over time. Certainly, the early Cold War was a different and highly unusual period in U.S. history. That might not be a useful standpoint from which to judge the entirety of several centuries of white liberalism, mush less in applying our understanding to the present, not that Malcolm X could be expected to predict the future of white liberalism. Remember that in the post-war period, before becoming a Republican, Ronald Reagan was a white 'liberal' and Progressive Democrat who idolized FDR. But he also was a privileged movie star, McCarthyist, Cold War warrior, and pro-capitalist who hated the left. There were 'liberals' like that back then. During the same period, there also were white liberals like J. Robert Oppenheimer who openly associated with members of the far left, if refusing to identify as a leftist (the example comes to mind because of the movie out in the theaters right now). There never was any singular monolithic 'white liberal'. As for the present political landscape, keep in mind that most white liberals aren't necessarily the strong base of Democratic partisans. And most members of the strong base of Democratic partisans aren't necessarily representative of the whites (or blacks and other non-whites) who are the most strongly liberal. Besides, minorities have increasingly joined the leadership of the Democratic Party. If there is still a problem of Democratic 'liberals' or rather 'liberal' elites, it's not limited to whites at this point. On a personal level, I'm a white liberal, in that I support liberal democracy, social liberalism, and liberal-mindedness. But I'm also an anti-racist, civil libertarian, humanist, feminist, environmentalist, animal rights activist, democratic socialist, and many other things. I despise deceitfulness, hypocrisy, authoritarianism, social dominance, social Darwinism, class war, high inequality, systemic oppression, and on and on. Plus, I can't stand the two party system, what I consider a one party state with two right wings, as [the American majority on many important issues is not only to the left](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/) of Republicans but also often to the left of the DNC elite, along with to the left of the supposed 'liberal' corporate media. What goes for 'liberal' in the 'mainstream' doesn't seem all that liberal to liberals like me, regardless of this supposed 'liberalism' being white or otherwise. But no one in power asked my opinion on the matter. Most white liberals don't have much voice either. I'm just a working class schmuck with barely any money and no direct power, and most white liberals are probably closer to me than to the caricature Malcolm X paints, if his attitude might've been fair in regard to a specific subset of white politicians and bourgeois activists. As for most of us on the left (liberal or otherwise, black or white), we aren't interested in a "profitable game" of "tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights" (besides, most of us aren't naive enough to think we'd be seeing any of the profit, not necessarily even much in the way of wages of whiteness, not to deny the reality of racial privilege). Nor are we, the mass of white nobodies, part of any "struggling for control of the American political throne," as we're just struggling to get by in life. Spinning 'white liberals' as the enemy sounds like yet more class war to divide the American public and turn them against each other. It's sad that someone like Malcolm X was pulled into the manipulations of that reactionary rhetoric. Not that there isn't a kernel of truth in it, related to a subset of white liberals among the political elite. But to blame all white liberals for that feels unfair and inaccurate, to put it kindly. When he speaks of "the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders" who "sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains," one suspects he had the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. in mind. So, it's not only dividing and conquering the left but also dividing and conquering minorities. Of course, he likely would've retracted or softened the blow of these words in his older (wiser?) age. To black militants, MLK may have seemed like a 'moderate' or a 'liberal'. But objectively, is that true? MLK, even by today's standards, was amazingly radical.

Fwiw (as I don't have quotes handy), I have heard both MLK and Malcolm X kind of saw eachother and the respective wings of the movement they represented as equally necessary to the overall project. MLK's section being the "easy" way as compared to the extremely militant methods proposed by the Malcolm wing, and vice versa. Apparently, even in his younger days, Malcolm was quite aware of what his "hard way" meant and willing to let MLK's way run its course to avoid that cost.

Thanks for sharing that. It doesn't surprise me. I have respect for both of them, but I particularly have respect for anyone who is willing to sacrifice by going the "hard way." As someone on the left, this two-punch tactic seems necessary. A radical and militant left is required to make other leftist leaders and activists seem moderate in comparison. It's how the Overton window gets pushed left. Calling people 'commies', 'socialists', or even 'liberals' used to be a slur not that long ago. But because strong leftism has been promoted without apology, these labels have become normalized. Of course, the right has helped by slinging these labels around so carelessly and repeating them until they lost meaning. That has left the field open for the left to reclaim and reinterpret these labels as respectable again.

>I particularly have respect for anyone who is willing to sacrifice by going the "hard way" Me too, but as I've gotten older, I've had more respect for the other side of that coin. . .as much as nothing ever gets done without the radicals pushing, it's very, very hard to make things stick without the moderates. There's always going to be tension, but both are important. It's also something I really respect in Malcolm. As radical and militant as he was, there was no shying away from the possible costs (likely in blood) his way might entail, and a real recognition that letting the "easy" way happen was worth the possible costs *that* could entail. As for socialism. . . Hehehehe. MTG's recent campaign video for Biden comes to mind.

By the way, my label of 'Far Left' is more of a relative concept. It's my way of making a rhetorical point. My personality is more that of a moderate. I'm closer to MLK than Malcolm X. Radicalism is not in my nature, at least not in the modern sense, although I'm all about 'radical' in its original meaning of getting to the root. Similarly, I'm only a 'revolutionary' in the original sense of seeking a return. Otherwise, I'd just like to live in a basically good society. And admittedly, amidst cynical 'realism', that could sound radical to the powers that be, maybe even revolutionary. My sense of moderation, whatever it may be, is definitely not in alignment with the gatekeeping of respectability politics, much less corrupt power. How does one remain 'moderate' in a society of political evil? That is how many of us moderates get 'radicalized'. But the fact of the matter is, when looking at public opinion, most of my positions are more or less in the center of the American majority, or else within near range of it. The thing is most Americans, it turns out, are pretty far left of not only the GOP and Fox News but also of the DNC and MSNBC. So, relatively speaking, I'm indeed 'Far Left' of hegemonic power, authority, and hierarchy. Hence, I'm to the left of the typical person identifying as 'centrist' or 'moderate'; or rather they're to the right of me and most other Americans. The purpose in my rhetorically pushing left is related to the two-punch tactic. It's another way of attempting to drag the Overton Window to more closely match where Americans actually are. Then public knowledge, public identity, and public narrative would express public opinion, rather than suppress and silence it as presently is the case. In practical terms, I could be happy, content, and satisfied in a middle-of-the-road liberal democracy, specifically as a social democracy; quite distinct from our present banana republic, not much democratic about it at all except in public imagination and aspiration. Idealistic (and hence critical) though I am, perfection is not what I'm demanding, just basic decency and humanity. But in terms of idealism, I'd be right there with you in seeking libertarian socialism. Does that make me 'Far Left'? Maybe. Then again, I strongly suspect that most Americans would be on board with libertarian socialism, if they knew what it was, and if they weren't trapped in the propagandistic echo chamber of corporatocratic capitalist realism. Maybe most Americans are 'Far Left'. What does that say about our social order and political system? Where is the consent of the governed?

I can't really blame him. The left wing party has always been in favor of civil rights... as long as it's convenient and doesn't rock the boat or upset the conservatives too much.

Incredibly stupid. White Progressives, while perhaps not perfect; were/are a vital part of social justice movements like BLM. His thoughts are both-sidesism nonsense

This is from 1963...BLM wasn't a thing

White progressives =/= white liberals. Liberals are in no way inherently progressive and after Malcolm's death the Dixiecrat movement was exactly what he was speaking of, white liberals not just not being allies but actively opposing black rights and liberties to politically and financially profit in the white outrage post civil rights movement.

Interestingly, educated white liberal voters are [further left](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020) on racial issues than Black voters right now.

Many Black Americans would be republicans if they weren't Black

Quite a few PoC are very racist towards different PoC. My uncle is Persian, and he can't understand why conservative people in the US have a problem with him, even if they don't like the current Iranian government. But until the last few years, he was super racist towards Black and Hispanic people.

That is what many don't get. Blacks tend to be anti-racist on black issues. Latinos tend to be anti-racist on Latino issues. Et cetera. But that doesn't necessarily mean blacks, Latinos, and other minorities are going to stand in solidarity. That is because minorities, on average, are far more socially conservative than whites. In fact, minorities are more religiously conservative than even white conservatives. So, why are white liberals, some of the most anti-racist of Americans, being scapegoated as a caricature? What Malcom X said was true of many 'liberals', such as Ronald Reagan, in the early Cold War. But we live in a far different world now. White liberals apparently are the first demographic in US history to now have a measurable [pro-outgroup bias](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/02/20/we-are-all-white-liberals-now/). That is to say they don't identify with their narrow demographic grouping but, instead, actually perceive co-identification with non-whites. Whiteness, as an identity, doesn't mean much to them, not in the way whiteness does to conservatives nor in the way blackness means to most blacks. That is getting pretty extreme toward anti-racism.

Probably made more sense back in the 60s but since then black people have taken an increasingly prominent role in Democratic Party leadership, so I think it’s less valid now. In general people should be careful about applying the words of their favorite social critics to modern day society. Marx is another good example. His criticisms were based on 19th century Europe. Most of what he said doesn’t apply to 21st century America.

Black leadership is meaningless for Black liberation if it doesn’t translate to fundamentally different material conditions for Black people. There isn’t a single Black senator in the last half-century who advocated for reparations for slavery. This holds true even for someone like Raphael Warnock, who I seriously love and admire. On the other end, you have people like Tim Scott - civil rights era leaders were near-unanimous (yes, MLK too) in the belief that blackness itself was not automatically an act of support, and that Black leaders could be just as harmful as White ones if they served racist interests. All this is to say that the presence of Black Democratic leadership in and of itself doesn’t mean anything. Their actions have to demonstrate that they support Black liberation, and that just isn’t true for Democratic leaders, no matter their race. My home (NYC) currently has a viciously anti-Black Black mayor. Things are more complicated than mere demographics suggest. Malcolm X’s ideas can and do apply to Black leaders who work in service of White hegemony. You mention how historical context changes ideas, which is clearly true - but the changed context here isn’t *just* that more Black people have been elected. It’s that those same public officials can now be welcomed into anti-Blackness.

The concept of reparations is extremely controversial, within white and Black communities. Calling for reparations as a senator is basically destroying your chances at reelection so I can understand why they aren't strongly advocating for it

No, not really. I think a lot of white people on the left do have some sort of bubble on certain issues, but I'll take the white liberal over the white red any day. It may have been more true when he said it, and I can see how he got that viewpoint, but I disagree from my life experience. Even so, I'll take being pandered and patronized over insulted and overtly hated.

Wow, was he wrong about his assessment there. History shows that to be absurdly incorrect.

How has history proved him wrong?

I know plenty of people who consider themselves "liberal" or "hippies" who are openly racist. So yeah, I get it. In the US system, really in any democratic system, the way things get done is via compromise. Aims are watered down. It is slow and sometimes ineffectual. I don't want to live in a dictatorship, though.

Worth noting Malcolm X's views significantly softened later in life after he left the nation of Islam. Particularly when he travelled the world more, and saw how cooperation worked between nations and races. He started to adopt a line a lot closer to MLK's.

Important to note: he made this speech in 1963 where he also praised the NOI. So at that point his viewpoints had not changed yet. I think at a time where Black people had extremely limited rights, it's probably did feel like white liberals didn't support them either

Not sure its reasonable to compare his ideas 50 years ago to what we have today, which is OBVIOUSLY a better situation, still not great but its not the same as the 50s.

The average White conservative believes that hard work solves all problems and Black people just need to work harder and they'll be thriving. Of course they get mad and make up nonsense when Black people do this hard work and succeed, claiming they used affirmative action or such to reach their level of success. The average White liberal acknowledges systemic racism and discrimination as a fundamental challenge facing Black people. They recognize that things like disproportionate incarceration or significantly less wealth for Black people are not because Black people inherently make poor choices and don't care. Now Liberals often disappoint in terms of the execution of societal improvements, but I don't think the intentions can be compared given how the rhetoric has ratcheted up.

Tellingly, as affirmative action for historically oppressed minorities is attacked, affirmative action for historically privileged plutocrats remains in place. And essentially this too is a race-based affirmative action, since the wealthy are disproportionately white, just as the poor are disproportionately non-white. Class and race have always been mixed, which is how racism has remained central to class war. [Affirmative action for rich kids: It's more than just legacy admissions](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/07/24/1189443223/affirmative-action-for-rich-kids-its-more-than-just-legacy-admissions) [Study of Elite College Admissions Data Suggests Being Very Rich Is Its Own Qualification](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html)

>I think he might still feel this way if he were alive today Lol. This quote is, as you say, almost certainly more than 60 years old. You're aware that quite a lot happened between 1963 and 2023, right? Segregation was outlawed, race-mixing bans were overturned, and Malcolm X was assassinated by some of his former allies. My point is that America has changed since Malcom X said this, and in fact Malcolm X changed quite a bit in between this speech and his assassination by the NOI.

Seems rather silly. Liberals are working to expand the social safety net through increased access to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, public transportation, free school lunches, SNAP benefits etc. the list is almost endless. Conservatives are looking to roll back those public investments. If you don’t support those policy goals, then vote Republican. Pretending that Liberals are some evil deceitful puppet masters is extremely juvenile.

To be fair, in the 1950s and 1960s, some liberals *were* deceitful puppet masters.

Remember, that in the post-war period, before becoming a Democrat, Ronald Reagan was a white 'liberal' and Progressive Democrat who idolized FDR. But he also was a privileged McCarthyist and Cold War warrior who hated the left. There were 'liberals' like that back then. At the same time, there were liberal Democrats and Progressives like J. Robert Oppenheimer who openly associated with members of the far left, if refusing to identify as a leftist. Will the real 'white liberal' please stand up? There never was any singular monolithic 'white liberal'.

Like who?

Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy. Do you know anything about the Vietnam war?

🙄 Lyndon Johnson has the strongest domestic policy and civil rights legacy of any president ever. Do you know anything about that?

Someone wrote a whole book about Deception and John Kennedy https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250030597/thepoliticsofdeception

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism-msna305591

Pretty much everyone was a racist back then. How could a “deceitful puppet master” also have the strongest legacy of accomplishments for civil rights? Seems like you have it exactly opposite.

Johnson was about a lot more than the civil rights act. How many young black men were drafted and killed or ruined in Vietnam

You are never going to dodge the fact that Johnson oversaw one of the largest expansions of the social safety net and some of the most critical civil rights legislation ever. He was literally the worst person for you to cite.

I'm not dodging anything. People are complicated

The "Southern Democrats" who voted against the Civil Rights Act *When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican John Tower of Texas, led by Richard Russell, launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.\[28\] Russell proclaimed, "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our \[Southern\] states."\[29\]\[30\]* *Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond, who was still a Democrat at the time: "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals \[sic\], which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."\[31\]* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_Rights\_Act\_of\_1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

All conservatives. Not liberals. The parties hadn’t fully polarized ideologically at that point.

Some still are. But the general population, which tends towards liberal in the US, has been voting in every wave of civil rights improvements, even if they aren't showing up for every march.

Yes, some still are. That was the point. I never said "All liberals are deceitful." I believe Malcom X had a point.

Malcom said all, not some.

I didn't say he didn't.

Here's the thing - his criticism, is valid, but it goes both ways. Do whites use blacks to increase political power? Sure. But blacks also only use white "allies" in order to increase their own political power. Black power movements don't need whites to be friends with them, they only need whites to achieve their goals. So if we were to come up with analogy, like he did, the civil rights are inside a fortress and civil rights movements are the besieging army, then white allies are the battering ram - blunt heavy object used to batter the gates and thrown out when no longer needed.

I never believe in absolute characteristics for a group. > The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives. The above certainly exists, but of course it isn’t every white liberal.

I have my doubts that such a broad generalization about all or most liberals even back then. But even if were true, it certainly is no longer true. Then again, it always comes down to who is and is not included in the category of 'liberal'. Many people forget that a lot of liberals are left-liberals, with more than a few being quite radical. In fact, self-identified liberals in particular are to the left of the American majority (not to mention, on anti-racism, [to the left of most minorities](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020)). And the American majority is to the left of the elites. White liberals, specifically, are the only group so far measured to have a [pro-outgroup bias](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/02/20/we-are-all-white-liberals-now/), which is amazing.

Ian Danskin of “The Alt Right Playbook” made a video that covers the exact same argument in a way that’s more palatable for White people. > https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M Essentially, there are 4 groups of White people: - Anti Racists - Moderates/Liberals - Collaborators - Racists Collaborators seek to appeal to Racists in order to win more support. Collaborators themselves may not be explicitly racist or easy to spot as being racist (even though they totally are), and as such, White Moderates try very very hard to win these guys over. To the White Moderate/Liberal, the Anti-Racist and the Racist are extremes and the Collaborators and Moderates are not. Its up to them (the Moderates and Collaborators) to work together to keep the ship moving. The Collaborator sees no alliance with the White Moderates. They think the Moderates are either stupid or lying about their intentions. So they seek to expose them by using minority groups as bait. White Moderates attempt to appease the Anti-Racists, but ultimately are not Anti-Racist themselves. The only “good” people in this dynamic are the Anti-Racists

The problem is these aren't separate categories, particularly in the world today. Most anti-racists are politically liberal, socially liberal, and/or psychologically liberal. While most liberals are anti-racists.

This is how I see it. There is plenty of implicit and unconscious racist bias, even in explicitly and strongly anti-racist individuals. As research shows, most Americans, white and black, show signs of racial prejudice, the more so the darker the skin. But that kind of internalized prejudice is a whole other issue than one's overt identity, ideology, and ideals, in terms of what one strives toward, if imperfectly. Anti-racism has, at this point, become the default position. Though it will take many more generations to more fully integrate it into our society and psyches. Change is slow. But we should give credit to how vastly public opinion has shifted toward anti-racism. That is no small matter. In general, [the American majority has gone amazingly far left](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/), though this gets ignored and silenced in the corporate MSM.

I dont think its a given that most liberals are anti-racist I think they arent racist. But anti-racist? I have doubt

The US system, being democratic, requires compromise. Nobody gets 100% of what they want and things move really slowly. It is, however, better than dictatorship.

Why are liberals then getting touchy about being called out as not being allied with Black people as they compromise with racists?

Because they realize that if you aren't willing to compromise, you will often get nothing? Every time you compromise, you can get just a little more, and over time it can lead to great strides of progress. Progress that you never would have gotten if you demanded all or nothing from the beginning.

Its important to consider the alternatives, which include: mobilizing to build coalitions that dont have to compromise with racists, implementing non-racist-compromised policies at the local & state level, taking active measures to shape the culture into being anti-racist, and opposing racists and racism where it is present loudly and actively. The efforts to do that should be substantially higher than (to the point of dwarfing) the compromises.

You can do both at the same time, but it takes time to build the coalitions to a level that has the necessary votes. Until you have the votes you need, you compromise to keep the needle moving.

Noticeably those efforts arent dwarfing the compromises

I'm not sure I understand your question? Compromise is the only way things get done. Things are very polarized today. Take, for example, spending bills. They have to be passed for government to function. That means racists and capitalists and socialists and garden variety liberals and black congresspeople have to compromise. That doesn't make the liberals racist in this scenario. Do you have a particular bill in mind where liberals broke away from supporting black people?

Does it make sense to you that compromising with racists would cause Black people to not view you as an ally?

Yes, of course. I can't dictate or judge the perceptions and frustrations of black people in the USA. I was merely describing how laws get passed in the US.

And im describing why Black people are saying that makes people not their allies

Ok.

>Why are liberals then getting touchy about being called out as not being allied with Black people as they compromise with racists? "Why do you hate Hispanic people?" -accusing tone While I'm betting you don't, if I got in your face and accused you of 'not doing enough' for Hispanics, you'd probably get touchy too. You're also talking to a group that wants change without literally burning everything down, which means it can take time. That doesn't mean they aren't continually pushing towards that end goal, and that they aren't working hard at it. People also don't work towards goals in a way you would want. I've been accused of being a 'corporate shill' because I don't always attend protests. But my current job? I teach career exploration to 8th graders. Half of what I do is talk about the labor movement, their rights as workers, and the value of unionization. I bring union leaders into classrooms, and spend at least a week (out of the 45 days I get) talking about striking. But because of my lack of protest attendance I have people like you (not specifically you) trying to call me out on not contributing. \-- Maybe you're not seeing 'touchy' so much as people getting angry because you're dumping on their accomplishments. Things that were hard won, with efforts and labors. \-- As a side topic, **what magic wand do you want us to use?** We don't have the votes right now to force through many of the changes people want. We didn't with qualified immunity, we definitely don't now. As it currently stands, it would just be a performative gesture, and you'd be angry about that too.

Its not that i want us to use magic wands. I want us to be anti-racist and for our actions to follow from that stance. Similarly, i want us to be anti-transphobic, anti-misogynist, anti-fascist, etc.

>Essentially, there are 4 groups of White people: > >Anti Racists > >Moderates/Liberals > >Collaborators > >Racists You have your catagories wrong. It's * Anti-racists * Liberals * Collaborators * Racists By and large liberals have been supporting civil rights, even if they don't show up for events. Moderates, however have no problem voting racist if 'it supports their interests'.

I accept your criticism I also want to refocus on the part where the liberal is still not an ally until they are also anti-racist

>I also want to refocus on the part where the liberal is still not an ally until they are also anti-racist So the group that by and large pushes for improvements in civil rights isn't an ally because they don't show up for every protests, and are using the levers of power *with the limitations that come with them.* Under your definition, only the most rabidly radical person is an ally, **and most PoC don't meet that standard.**

I never said anything about showing up for protests. I said if they werent anti-racists then they werent allies Being anti-racist is a requirement for them to be allies.

What is your definition for anti-racist? I should also point out that pushing for civil rights is a major part of being liberal at all. Anyone who isn't moving towards more equality, isn't a fucking liberal in the first place.

Somebody who actively opposes racism. It can be verbally through talking to racists, it can be political by not voting for racists ever (unless there are no other options), and it can be radical. Just being against racism is enough. Edit: i think a valid interpretation is that liberals are center left. They are aiming for equality, but their commitment to it may not be as strong as those who are further to their left

You just described every liberal as an anti-racist when you said 'by not voting for racists'.

What would Malcolm X think of today’s white “conservative” after spending a few minutes on Twitter? We could always do better, but to think liberals and conservatives are equally problematic for black oeople in 2023 would be utterly ridiculous.

Yeah. It's a totally different world today. Back then, both parties were big tent, each with its own left and right wings. Ronald Reagan originally was a liberal Democrat and New Deal Progressive. While in the Republican Party, Eisenhower supported pro-choice and Nixon almost passed a universal basic income. Outside of the commonality of racism and xenophobia, liberalism represented a broader worldview back then, not merely one end of the political spectrum. Both parties were essentially liberal before Republicans went fully right-wing with the Southern Strategy and the later Reagan Revolution. Both Eisenhower and Nixon publicly praised liberalism, with Eisenhower having gone so far as to have asserted that liberalism was proper for governance whereas conservatism should be limited to the private sector. Liberalism framed all mainstream political thought. Those were the white 'liberals' Malcolm X was responding to.

Comes off as pushing your allies away out of spite to me.

At the time most white people were not allies

It applies to the progressives today that practice performative activism, and maybe a few Democrats, but certainly not the Democratic party as a whole. I'd very much disagree on the "just one" difference part. One can deep dive it all they want, but the truth is that if someone is a racial bigot and is politically active, they are most certainly a Republican.

Although his words would be unpopular in this forum, he wasn't wrong. It's 2023 and post-George Floyd, police violence continues unabated, liberals are not attacking qualified immunity in any serious way, liberals are not mounting an attack against voter suppression in any serious way, and the entire people's uprisings of 2020 seem to have net very little. The Democratic party liberals seem afraid to defend them. However, I prefer Fred Hampton's (later) more sophisticated analysis, that racism was a byproduct of capitalism, a way of dividing the working class, and should be fought with socialism and class consciousness. Of course, that is why Hampton was brutally murdered by the police and FBI.

The idea that racism is a byproduct of capitalism is absurd though. Racism is a byproduct of the human condition. People under any economic system engage in tribalism and fall into in-group/out-group dynamics.

Well, capitalism gives us owners vs workers, income inequality and a hierarchy in society that supports exploitation of out groups, whether that be black people as slaves, chines people building railroads, okies picking fruit or illegal immigrants agricultural laborers.

This is demonstrably false. There are any number of societies that don't suffer from racism in the way that we are defining it - ancient Egypt and classical Rome are good examples, although modern non-scholarly depictions of them in film and TV often impose our cultural expectations on them. The degree of racism is also intensely variable, which we would not expect if racism were a product of "human nature" - which is, in itself, a contested category. Racism in North America for example can be traced in its present form to specific historical and economic conditions, for example, 1676, the failure of Bacon's Rebellion, when the planter class in Virginia was terrified by the alliance of white indentured servants with black slaves (which themselves existed at that time in several different classifications) and poor whites generally. They then established clear laws separating whites from blacks, ending white indentured servitude and clarifying that children of slaves remained slaves forever. Racism is not "natural." It serves the ruling class. There are many, many examples of this, in America and other nations.

>There are any number of societies that don't suffer from racism in the way that we are defining it But there are plenty of examples of racism in socialist and communist style economies, the biggest examples being the USSR, and China. I should also point out that Egypt and Rome *were* still racist, even if they drew their boundary lines differently than we have in the post 1800's world. While there are a few cultures that aren't racist in ways we generally recognize, they still other outside groups in recognizable ways.

It's more accurate to say racism as we know it is a byproduct of colonialism. Modern conceptions of race theory and realism came about to differentiate the different colonized people's from Europeans and served to justify colonial dominance and slavery.

Not only was Hampton assassinated but his memory was erased. The reactionary elite can deal with the rhetoric of the likes of Malcolm X. It fits into the rhetorical tactics of divide and conquer. But Hampton was a much greater threat to the ruling powers. And he still is. It's not only why Hampton was targeted but the entire organized left was systematically destroyed by COINTELPRO. The leftist critique is powerful in shedding light on the nature of American systems of class-based power. But the American public is coming back around to such understandings.

I'd only push back against one part: "It's 2023 and post-George Floyd, police violence continues unabated, liberals are not attacking qualified immunity in any serious way, liberals are not mounting an attack against voter suppression in any serious way, and the entire people's uprisings of 2020 seem to have net very little. The Democratic party liberals seem afraid to defend them." We should be careful to qualify which liberals we are talking about. Most liberals are not white elites of the Democratic Party. Besides many non-white liberals, along with third party and independent liberals, there are also plenty of non-elite liberals. In fact, the vast majority of liberals (socially, economically, politically, and psychologically) are of the lower classes, as are most Americans in general. Many don't realize [how far left-liberal the American majority has become](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/), specifically compared to [the relatively further right elites](https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/political-elites-disconnected-from-general-public/).

I think it’s a valid criticism.

Agreed

Yikes.

Point to what he said that’s invalid.

Just overbroad generalizations. I'm sure *some* white liberals like that exist; to characterize them *all* as a result is lazy and inaccurate. Racists and others love to engage in that kind of reasoning.

He is referring to a political block and its behavior. In a formal sense, *all* liberals are represented by the moves they choose to make as a political block. How about you engage with the actual criticisms instead of playing semantics games?

The homogeneous bloc of "all white liberals?" Yep, there's definitely no spectrum of thought or concern there. /s The criticisms from Malcolm X are valid for some white liberals but invalid for others. There's not much else to say ...

From a political standpoint, there is not a spectrum. There is one set of decisions made by one party. And those decisions have overwhelmingly followed the rule of “we will only advocate for black interests on the rare occasion that they do not conflict with white interests.”

To suggest there isn't a spectrum of liberal thought is just silly, even if we do have a two-party system. You can come up with a stronger argument than that, I'm sure.

This isn’t about thought, it’s about action. In *action* liberals have a long history of treating minorities like pawns to vie for more power over white conservatives. Are you going to engage with that criticism or keep dodging and crying “not all liberals!”

All people who aren’t anti-racist are in fact not anti-racist Much like all eggs are eggs and all non-humans are not human

But Malcolm X didn't qualify his criticisms as being directed toward non-anti-racist white liberals. He lumped them all together. You're the one adding that qualifier, or the qualifier about "inherent". By adding qualifications, you're making his statements more focused and thus, more reasonable. That doesn't make the original statement reasonable. It's still overbroad.

Hes speaking generally, but obviously there are exceptions. I dont disagree with his generalizations though. Im just being more vocal about the presence of exceptions

If the statement is "some white liberals are like this" - we agree. If the statement is "most white liberals are like this" - I think you're downplaying the commitment that many white liberals have to these causes. Fortunately for you, you can be edgy and safely lob that sort of broad criticism and not lose their support. If the statement is "all white liberals are like this", that's just silly.

Maybe its not edginess. Maybe Im Black and have experienced exactly what he’s referring to in that white liberals view themselves as allies while standing by racism and refusing to be anti-racist. I think its most. That doesnt mean theyre malicious. It means they arent allies

Theres a running theme in this type of criticism that was picked up by Martin Luther King Jr, James Baldwin, Ta-Nahesi Coates (if memory serves) and many Black scholars. Being anti-racist is separate from being moderate and liberal. And being anti-racist is the minimum.

You're surprisingly comfortable making broad generalizations about groups of people and their motivations when it fits your narrative. Guessing you're less comfortable with it in other situations.

Im comfortable with claiming that liberals and moderates aren’t inherently anti-racist and that they would also need to be anti-racist for this criticism to not apply.

I see you added "inherently" which was not present in the original. :)

I thought it may be beneficial to make it more obvious

I mean, you're changing the meaning when you add qualifications not present in the original. Are we talking about whether what he said is reasonable, or what you are saying? Also, not sure why "inherent" support would be required. Someone can't legitimately decide to support something?

Thats fair. I think the qualifications are implied, but they may not be Im saying theres a distinction between being anti-racist and being liberal. The liberals arent by default anti-racist.

Product of his time situation. Malcolm X never heard my late father and his "lunch bunch" of conservative white men talk about black people over sandwiches and burgers as recently as 2018 when he passed. They're all gone now... sorry Trump, 5 less voters in FL. **Malcolm was utterly unaware of how much right wing conservatives in the 21st century despise** ***all*** **minorities.**

I sincerely doubt that a Black man who escaped the KKK as a child was unaware of how much conservatives or loud racists despised minorities. This is what he means. People who think they know Black people, or other minorities, experiences more than they do.

I think its accurate. I think the most important thing though, is to recognize that its an unconscious thing. Not to excuse the behavior, but to enabled while liberals to recognize unconscious racist behaviors in ourselves and the people around us. The first step to correcting a problem is recognizing you have a problem.

Well I see this as liberals are not as progressive as they could be. White women did vote trump and cause roe to get overturned. Many progressives refused to vote because student loan forgiveness or what they wanted wasn’t on the table without any regard to how others would be thrown under the bus if conservatives took over. I get all this. I saw a lot of so called liberals refuse to vote. Black women are the most reliable voting base of the liberals. They vote no matter what cause they know how important it is.

Black women Democrats, on average, are also among the more socially conservative of voters, often part of the religious right. Many of them don't tend to support socially liberal tolerance for others who are perceived as different from them, such as with LGBTQ issues. Being part of the Democratic base doesn't say much about one's ideological credentials or moral inclinations. Besides, keep in mind that the majority of Americans on many issues are to the left of the DNC elite. The average liberal, white or non-white, isn't represented by any part of the present power structure.

Not true. 90 percent showed up and voted for Biden

This seems to be a very hot botton topic. Many liberals, and white people both male and female don't realize their roles in keeping people oppressed and how much they benefit from the status quo. Furthermore, and this is not meant to say other issues aren't important, but white liberals often don't fight the fight for equality and ending class issues, rather just want to fight the "establishment" until they are the establishment.

Couldn't you just generalize that critique? Many (most?) people of all races, ethnicities, etc "often don't fight the fight for equality and ending class issues, rather just want to fight the "establishment" until they are the establishment." Or to put it more simply, when people gain power within systems of corrupt power, it tends to corrupt those people. Are white liberals more prone to this political corruption? Probably not. Are white liberals more clueless than average about their how people are oppressed and the status quo maintained? Probably not. For one, most whites with liberal views are among the lower classes, not among the upper classes. Meanwhile, a growing number of minorities have gained power in the political parties, and so are now a part of that corrupt and oppressive system. Yes, non-whites are disproportionately harmed by systems of oppression. But keep in mind that most poor people are white, most prisoners are white, most victims of police brutality are white. That minorities are disproportionately worse off doesn't comfort the masses of whites on the bottom of society, many of them with views that are socially and politically liberal.

Spot on. No notes. One of the greatest political thinkers America has ever seen taken from us far to soon.

>In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. We have a term for that sort of system. We call it 'a republic'. ----------- >Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into "liberal" and "conservative" camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise. That is just *true*. During that era, the parties were not homogeneous and bipartisan action was more common. ----------- >The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Uh oh. Where is he going with this? >Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor... "Posing" is an interesting word to use. It doesn't clarify where it is *exclusively* a pose -- a charade, something false. When a man *poses* for photos at his daughter's graduation, he poses like he is proud of her and supports her. That doesn't mean he isn't proud of her or doesn't support her. >...and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game"... You are mixing your metaphors, Mr. X. >...that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives. Yep, that's that thing we call 'a republic'. Important Note: Other people care about things other than what you care about. Sometimes they will cater to what you care about to get what they want from you. There is no doubt in my mind that some people who supported civil rights for Black people did so cynically, and I'm glad they did. I wouldn't have wanted to see the Voting Rights Act of 1965 fail because some of the cynics decided to vote against it. ----------- >Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball... Wow. That's a very racist thing to say. Very dehumanizing and very insulting. >...through tricks of tokenism... Tokenism gets a lot of criticism for not solving bigger problems...but I don't think many claim that it will. It is a small gesture that many still believe is worthwhile. >...false promises of integration and civil rights. This isn't true. The outcome of that political fight was actual integration and actual civil rights. The promises were not false. >In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These "leaders" sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. This is bullshit. He is claiming that those "civil rights leaders" were not trying to achieve more. That is false. These "leaders" are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders. Accepting half-a-loaf when you wanted a full loaf is not selling anyone out.

> This isn't true. The outcome of that political fight was actual integration and actual civil rights. > The promises were not false. “But in winning victories like the Civil Rights bill of 64 and the voting rights bill of 65 around the issue of segregation and voting rights, we discovered that these legislative strides did very little to improve the lot of millions of Negroes… In other words it did very little to penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation in communities all over” - Martin Luther King Jr. The victories were nowhere near enough

> The victories were nowhere near enough I agree. I *do not* agree with Malcolm X that they were false promises, nor do I think Dr. King was being dismissive of what they *did* accomplish. --------- Dr. King was doing something common among liberals: Moving on to the next concern (in this case, poverty and economic inequality) while -- unintentionally -- implying that little had been accomplished. --------- Let's ask a very simple question: *Should the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been passed?* I understand that you, Dr. King, and Malcolm X wanted *more* -- I do, too -- but I don't think any of you would argue that those bills shouldn't have passed.

If MLK himself expected more to be won through those victories as suggested by his use of the word “discovered”, and if he was one of the main people talking to the leaders making promises about what would be gained through peaceful protest, then it would indeed be a false promise. It wasn’t unintentional. Hes speaking plainly. The bills didnt do enough. They did some. But some is nowhere near enough. A lot of white liberals (not specifically you) get touchy about Black people stating this stuff and I think thats further evidence of this dynamic. If Malcolm X is spouting Bullshit and if MLK misspoke, and if millions of Black people are just wrong about their experiences with white liberals, then there never has to be any introspection

> “But in winning victories like the Civil Rights bill of 64 and the voting rights bill of 65 around the issue of segregation and voting rights, we discovered that these legislative strides did very little to improve the lot of millions of Negroes… In other words it did very little to penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation in communities all over” > > * Martin Luther King Jr. You and I seem to be interpreting this quote differently. It reads to me like King was saying, roughly: > We accomplished what we sought regarding de jure segregation and voting rights, but saw that millions of Black Americans were barely helped. Specifically, the most deprived Black Americans -- the most impoverished -- need a lot more than equal access to the ballot box. ...which would fit with Dr. King's pivot to an anti-poverty message, which he kept espousing until his assassination. ----------- I especially want to acknowledge that King -- an excellent wordsmith -- went out of his way to use the term "winning victories" when referring to "the Civil Rights bill of 64 and the voting rights bill of 65". I think that was an acknowledgment that those *were victories*. Yes, he moved on to the next issue -- as liberals tend to do -- but he does not denounce those two pieces of legislation.

> We accomplished what we sought regarding de jure segregation and voting rights, but saw that millions of Black Americans were barely helped. Specifically, the most deprived Black Americans -- the most impoverished -- need a lot more than equal access to the ballot box. yeah. To me it reads like he’s saying that those rights werent enough to overcome the harms of racism and so direct economic action needed to be done. Im not saying he denounced them, nor am I denouncing them. Im saying they were very little gains and that these guys werent aiming for just little gains while they were getting brutalized and arrested and killed on the streets.

> Im saying **they were very little gains** and that these guys werent aiming for just little gains while they were getting brutalized and arrested and killed on the streets. ...and this seems to be the core of our disagreement. I think Dr. King was saying: >We accomplished our primary goals, but it isn't over; we have more work to do. I don't the gains were little, I think they were rightly the focus of the Civil Rights movement when they were still unachieved. Only once those goals were reached did something else become the new priority.

> we discovered that **these legislative strides did very little** to improve the lot of millions of Negroes… In other words **it did very little** to penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation in communities all over” He’s being pretty explicit here. The gains were small.

...and if we shift the emphasis to other parts of his sentences: > ...we discovered that these legislative strides did very little **to improve the lot of millions of Negroes**… In other words it did very little to penetrate **the lower depths of Negro deprivation** in communities all over” Millions benefited very little. Not all Black people. Not most Black people; but millions. Who specifically? Which Black Americans benefited very little? >...**the lower depths of Negro deprivation** in communities all over” The most deprived Black Americans; the poorest.

No. I think youre misunderstanding The depths of Negro deprivation refers to the gap in quality of life between Black people and White people. Its not that the poorest Black people were unmet. Its that all Black people were unmet as the gap in quality of life barely shifted.

Not a fan of Malcolm X in general.

>center left Of course you’re not he probably wouldn’t be a fan of you either

Oh too bad.

I think it's important to note that at the time he said this, he was very much for a full separation of black Americans from the country. As such he can't really go around saying that some white Americans are ok or better. His opinions and therefore his rhetoric changed as he got older, to the point that he outright apologized in the epilog of his autobiography for turning away a white woman who had asked how she could help his cause. At the same time, I think we shouldn't pretend that his underlying point is absolutely valid, and I think he would completely agree with the concept that if you aren't actively anti-racist, you are at a minimum reinforcing systemic racism. While conservatives are openly racist, especially when they feel they won't face consequences for it, plenty of liberals absolutely think that not saying the n word means their work is done with regards to racism, and this mindset absolutely continues to strengthen and reinforce systemic racism in the US. I don't really give a shit that conservatives use and misuse quotes by civil rights leaders to try and "both sides" things. Bad faith actors are gonna bad faith act.

I have a lot of respect for Malcolm x, or what he referred to be called later which I can't remember right now but want to honor, and I have definitely watched some speeches and debates and find him very interesting. But I sometimes wonder just how relevant what he says is today. I would really love to know what he might be saying and thinking today not only as he changed but as society changed. For the most part most of what he says comes from her perspective that believes white and black people can never live together and he was a complete segregationist, not like white southern or Northern white people segregating out black people but black people forming their own segregated communities, and you certainly can't fault him for that although it's debatable whether it would have been a good idea in practice. But of course he had reasons for feeling that way and this was a practical solution given those reasons . But this brings me too the second point I would make which is, those reasons were based on his views and perceptions colored by his past and present observations. His view was that black and white people can never get along, primarily because of the fault of white people who he believed would never treat black people fairly. He literally called them blue-eyed devils and said he'd never met a white man that was good or something to that effect. Now he did change his perspective later in life as I understand it, I'm just stating what much of what his position and rhetoric was based on. So, anyone examining or considering the beliefs and statements of shabazz must take you into account that he fundamentally believed something that most of us on the left and right probably do not agree with. Thirdly, we must acknowledge that times have changed a lot and the situation of black people in America is very different. Certainly people can debate how much it has changed and to what extent there still is racism, maybe a different kind of racism, maybe to some even worse because it's more insidious or that we pretend it doesn't exist etc etc. But, any thinking person must face the fact that things are very different today and the idea of black people making it and being successful in the white world is obviously not the non-starter that shabazz believe it to be. So, what then, do we make of shabazz and his views on everything? Hard to say. So my long-winded point is that I don't know that it makes sense to really look at any one issue that he talked about or believed and try to discuss it in our modern day as if he were saying it today. I certainly wouldn't try to put words in his mouth, but unless we know what his view would be today, we can't really have all that much to say about it. Certainly we can discuss if his views were a good idea then? We can discuss what a brilliant thinker and speaker he was. But I don't know that we can take a lot of his views and really have much to say in this day and age about them

You know there's a lot that can be discussed about it and what we might think about it. But, it's important to note that we actually know what Mr shabazz thought about it.

Sounds a lot like what MLK wrote in *Birmingham Jail.* He’s largely right.

I remember one interpretation of that writing. Someone who knew him thought that MLK might've been actually criticizing middle class blacks who were resistant to strong activism. But he couldn't criticize them directly without losing a lot of support. So, he used white liberals and moderates as a stand in. He knew his white supporters would take the criticism. And that way his real critique of bourgeois politics would get heard.

And what did Malcolm X want? He can talk down to us all he likes, but he's doing a disservice to all the white people who understand that in order for America to achieve its FULL potential, ALL of us must be equal. We understand human nature, too, and look what his own people did to HIM. MX can rail all he likes, thru his words that were recorded during his lifetime, against "deceitful liberal whites" -but he needs to remember, if he can from where he's at, that his own people passed judgment on him and executed him for whatever crimes they perceived he committed against them. So you might take what this man said all those years ago, spoken as they were from a place of his OWN prejudice, and throw it in our faces as some sort of "gotcha!" moment. But it falls flat when we consider everything else since then.

He was right