Not so Extreme, for an Extremist

I am thankful to say that I have never really experienced any sort of severe racism. That being said, my post is not in any sense trying to trivialize the discrimination Black people have faced throughout the long history of our country.

In Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet," he asks the audience many loaded questions, one of them being "How can you thank a [White] man for giving you what's already yours?" He goes on to say that "you haven't made progress, if what's being given to you, you should have already." I agree with Malcolm X in that the Black community of America should have had equal rights and opportunity far before they were finally granted. My issue with this argument, though, is that it is not realistic. It is full of hatred. It is not the way to change a society that has already expressed its aversion to change.

While it may oversimplify the issue, this passage immediately reminded me of my mom and her advice to me whenever I feel I've been hurt or disrespected by a friend. She tells me to "kill 'em with kindness;" to make them believe that you have taken the higher road and as a result, have the upper hand in the situation. 

While Malcolm X and the Negro community he was addressing with this speech have the right to be frustrated and angry at the system completely controlled by Whites, he is combatting their control in an ineffective way. This all goes back to Machiavelli-- it is my belief that constituents respond in a much more open way to friendly politics, and not to politics motivated by bitter resentment. 

Malcolm X makes it clear that he is not in favor of employing violence before it is employed against him. This is essentially what he means by choosing between the "ballot or the bullet:" if diplomatic means are not successful, violent means are not out of the question. I think it is Malcolm X's condoning of violence in the first place that made his movement more ineffective than others. White people were in a position of extreme power. Imagine someone using violence against them, but at the same time, trying to push their agenda and achieve their goals. It wouldn't work.

All of that aside, Malcolm X does make some really valid points regarding the separation of politics and economy between the White and Black communities. The Black Nationalist argues that when Black people contribute to an economy dominated by Whites, their “community will get poorer and poorer.” They are being exploited for labor and votes, and losing wealth as a result.

This excerpt of the speech reminded me a lot of the immigration issue that we face today. While illegal immigrants that cross the Mexico border do not have a right to be in America as a citizen, they hold up our economy. It is their labor, that many true citizens would never subject themselves to, which makes so many major companies in this country as profitable as they are. Of course the difference here is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, and the Negro community to which Malcolm X speaks to was not.

He suggests that Blacks should have communities of their own that they govern and control economically. While this may sound like an extreme idea, I do not think this is completely unheard of in today’s world. If you look at any major city, New York City being a good example, many “cultural enclaves” exist to this day, where the neighborhood is dominated by a certain ethnic group. While I am not saying this is an ideal system, I do not think it is as outrageous as I originally thought it was upon readying “The Ballot or the Bullet” for the first time. 

That being said, Malcolm X did not appear to be as extreme as I thought previously. He had some great ideas that made sense for the way Black people were treated at the time. However, if this reading taught me anything, it was that the presentation of your argument is half the battle in persuading your opponent. Perhaps the argument its self isn't always important. In politics, it is all about the package. Hitler was not upfront in his plans to exterminate the Jews because the extremity of the strategy would have driven people away. In this instance, the extremism came in the presentation, not so much in the concept its self. It is scary to think that sometimes, the substance is secondary to the presentation.