January 05, 2009 19:14
This whole affair has certainly stirred up a lot of emotions in me. Last night I rewatched an interview with James Baldwin, famous writer, playwright, activist. The interviewer asked James Baldwin to speak about the differences of Malcolm X and MLK and what is precisely going on here. Hauntingly, if Martin and Malcolm were replaced with contemporary
figures, Baldwin might seem as if he's talking about our current global
politique, read:Israel/Palestine, Neo-cons/THE WORLD, Security/Terrorism, hubris hubris hubris, here's a portion of the interview:
Jim: When Malcolm talks or one of the muslims talks, they articulate for all the Negro people who hear them; who listen to them. They articulate their suffering, the suffering which has been in this country so long denied. That's Malcolm's great authority over any of his audiences. He corroborates their reality; he tells them that they really exist.
Clark: Jim, do you think that this is a more effective appeal than the appeal of Martin Luther King?
Jim: It is much more sinister because it is much more effective. It is much more ffective, because it is, after all, comparatively easy to invest a population with a false morale by giving them a false sense of superiority, and it will always break down in a crisis. That is the history of Europe simple-- it's on eof the reaosn that we are in this terrible place. It is one of the reasons that we have five cops standing on the back of a woman's neck in Birmingham, because at some poin they were taught and they believed that they were better than other people because they were white. It leads t moral bankruptcy. It is inevitable, it cannot but lead there. But my point here is that the country is for the fisrt time worried about the Muslim movement. It shouldn't be worried about the muslim movement, that's not the problem. The problem is to elimnate the conditions which breed teh Muslim movement.