Dr King Started To Understand And Agree With Malcolm X
In his speech, The Other America, Martin Luther King famously describes riots as the language of the unheard. He also says a great deal more about riots, but most people don’t bother to quote that part:
I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they [sic] solve […]
But at the same time it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which calls persons to feel that they must get engaged in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots.
I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. And in the final analysis a riot is the language of the unheard.
In my article, Riots Are A Tantrum, I wrote about the destruction that followed the recent shooting of a French teenager. And I did something I don’t think I’ve ever done before; I (slightly) disagreed with Martin Luther King.
I argued that riots aren’t a language at all, they’re a tantrum. They’re distinct from language in that they have no structure or aims. They’re distinct from language in that they’re most painful for the people they’re not directed at. They’re distinct from language in that they aren’t trying to say anything.
Justin thought I’d misinterpreted both riots and Dr King.
Justin:
Dr. King near the end of his life started to understand and agree with the likes of Malcolm X and The Nation of Islam, it is disingenuous to only quote from one writing of his on the politics and nature of riots. We've had years of non-violence, and it has become pretty clear that it hasn't actually moved the needle, and in fact has kept us in the same spot it has always been. Over 95% of the protests organized by BLM were peaceful with the police being the escalators in many of the instances of violence, including the one for Brianna Taylor that you linked in the article.
As for the "violence" that was done in France over Nahel, it was done overwhelmingly to structures and property, not to people. You started this article declaring a tantrum is what an Apple store patron does when they don't get their way to people screaming for justice when a death has occurred and not been remedied is childish at best and disingenuous to the extreme at worst.
Steve QJ:
“Dr. King near the end of his life started to understand and agree with the likes of Malcolm X and The Nation of Islam”
I genuinely struggled to figure out which wildly inaccurate claim to highlight in this reply. The one I chose, just because it's completely backwards, is this one. King don't start to understand Malcolm X towards the end of his life, Malcolm X started to understand King.
Malcolm returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca with a completely different view on race relations. Much more in line with King's view. He had already distanced himself from the Nation of Islam. Sadly, he was assassinated shortly afterwards and this change of heart is less well known by casual observers than his previous more militant and racist stances. King, for his part, was frustrated by the slow, order-above-all approach that he saw from many white liberals. But he absolutely never wavered from his commitment to non-violence.
Please don't talk about things you know nothing about.
As for your claim that "we've had years of non-violence and it hasn't moved the needle," well, how can I argue? Segregation is still the law of the land in the south, black people are still denied the right to vote or buy houses or to attend schools with white students. No black person has ever held elected office (I mean, just imagine something as ludicrous as a black President or Vice President!! (haha)), support for interracial marriage is still at only 6%, just like it was in 1958, instead of at some pipe-dream number like 96%. Yep, no progress at all! The civil rights movement was a total failure!
And the "violence" in France? Yes! Right again! Thank God all of these "structures and property" you mention don't belong to anybody! Nope, the citizens of France didn't own any of the houses or cars or businesses that were set on fire for no discernible reason. They don't face any material losses, often in the poorest districts of their cities, that there'll be no possibility of compensation for because they were carried out by nameless, faceless thugs.
And further emphasising your brilliant rebuttal, that destruction brought Nahel back from the dead and led to productive, sweeping police reform in France. It absolutely didn't lead to greater authoritarianism from the police, as evidenced by a statement I linked to in the article.
What a shame that Nahel's family couldn't see this as clearly as you do. I'll be sure to tell them they're wrong for thinking that the appropriate way to "scream for justice" is to call for reforms that might actually prevent another tragedy. Clearly, stealing smartphones and setting fire to cars is the way to go.
Justin:
You point to the change Malcolm had in moving to King's position, which is 100% true, his leaving the Nation of Islam was towards a better vision (in my opinion), but Martin did come closer towards Malcolm's.
Excerpt from the link:
The Civil Rights Movement had to move on, but interestingly, even as Malcolm had been slowly moving closer to Martin’s nonviolent and integrationist approach before his assassination in 1965, so too did Martin start to slowly move towards Malcolm’s approach of active self-defence and rebellion. In fact, by the time of his own assassination in 1968, Martin was writing that he was not saddened by the rebellion of African-Americans against racist authority because “without this magnificent ferment among Negroes, the old evasions and procrastinations would have continued indefinitely.” [17] Many scholars, such as James Baldwin, assert that “by the time each met his death, there was practically no difference between them.” [18]
http://www.ihistory.co/meeting-in-the-middle-the-forgotten-relationship-of-malcolm-x-and-mlk-jr/
You can tell me he never waivered from non-violence in his strategy, but he stopped considering non-violence to be the only path to true equality, which to me is where we should all be.
In regards to your rebuttal of my point that "nothing moved the needle", having a black president doesn't mean that racism is ended, segregation officially ended in the 70's but places like Cleveland have an even greater segregation due to economic policies coded by segregationists, the denial of voting ability is still rampant, and the support for interracial marriage isn't the end of racism but it is still good that it's not a taboo issue. Nowhere did I say that the Civil Rights movement was a total failure, but that you're disregarding the part of the Civil Right's movement that was violent. Quoting Malcolm X:
“I want Dr. King to know that I didn’t come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking that I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is [to Martin’s nonviolent approach], perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King.” [12]
I'm not saying that property damage isn't costly, it is, that's the point, but that you're committing the same sin in lumping the destruction riots caused together with both the tantrums made by spoiled rich people in the US AND with the impunity to commit murder of the police. At any point you can switch to the other, making any discussion of the point impossible because you hold no single position on the matter. Do not forget that King was considered violent during his time and that King himself was a detriment to his cause.
As for bringing someone back from the dead, nowhere did I say that it would bring any person back, in the same way that police reform wouldn't save them either. Justice is to heal the wound inflicted, and neither of our solutions would bring someone back to life. Pretending that is what I meant or said shows the dishonesty of your words and sentiment. I do not think that stealing cars or lighting things on fire is specifically the solution, but that it will bring people to the table who have historically had every reason not to do so.
Your response is ahistorical and that was my point. That you cannot see anything but your own perspective and the revisionist history you bring to the article and responses you've written show how little you're actually willing to engage in the conversation. Telling me that I don't know history while you yourself are incorrect about it is the height of arrogance and an insult not just to yourself but every reader who listens to you.
Steve QJ:
“In regards to your rebuttal of my point that "nothing moved the needle", having a black president doesn't mean that racism is ended”
“Didn't move the needle” and “didn't completely end racism” are very different things. Obviously. You claimed the former. Which is ridiculous. I don't think anything else needs to be said on this point.
King “not being saddened” by the rebellion of African Americans is not the same thing as “[starting] to agree with (the former views of) Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.” And I'm not “telling you” Martin never wavered, like it's an opinion, I'm informing you that the day before he died he delivered a speech that included the following lines:
"We are masters in our non violent movement in disarming police forces. They don't know what to do. [...]
We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles, we don't need any Molotov cocktails, we just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right.
And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda-- fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."
I'm not sure even post-Mecca Malcolm would have said this. It would be an enormous understatement to say I admire King. So I won't stand for any revisionism of his views.
On the same note, I've read the entirety of Baldwin's piece (you can find it here), and while it's obvious there was still significant difference between King and X at the time of their deaths (see above), the narrowing of the distance, as Baldwin admits, is because Malcolm moved towards Martin's views after his trip to Mecca.
I'm not sure what point you're making about property damage. I'm not lumping rioters in with "the impunity to commit murder of the police." I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that from. I'm saying that the property damage, by and large, hurts ordinary, innocent people. Many of them among the poorest in France. And doesn't hurt the police or the elites in government at all.
In fact, it offers the police an excuse to flex their powers even more, and to crackdown even more brutally on everybody, including those protesting peacefully. It makes it easier to justify treating peaceful protesters as dangerous.
That's why I'm against it.
It's not that I can only see my perspective. Yes, I'm against violence. Mainly because I think (and history shows) that it's not the best way to achieve social justice. But I'm not "saddened" by Nat Turner's slave rebellion, for example (only that it failed). I'm not "saddened" by Malcolm's position of "by any means necessary" either. I understand it. I just don't fully agree with it. It's worth noting that in the end, neither did Malcolm.
So no, my response is not ahistorical at all. Without tooting my own horn too much, after writing about race extensively and professionally for over three years now, I'm pretty confident I know the history, especially as regards King, better than you do.
Justin:
I'll admit there was a bit of hyperbole in my response but you also used it when I said that the needle hadn't been moved. We clearly both took the others positions and wrought them into something different than what we meant. I apologize and will try to state what I meant better.
I didn't consider the views that Malcolm X had while part of the Nation of Islam to be the only views he expressed nor do I think he never moved away from them. I recognize that Malcolm moved closer to King, but that both had the recognition of the necessity of the other. In Letter from a Birmingham Jail King wrote that the greatest obstacle to justice was the White moderate deciding what and how one can get their freedoms, and I feel that should apply to anyone who says that riots are just tantrums. They way you wrote your article I didn't think you understood or empathized with anyone who believed that violence could ever be a solution, not simply that you disagree with it as a tactic.
When talking about property damage what I was trying to harp on was the lines in the article equating violence to tantrums, and that if you believe that violence to property harms only the poorest of France or wherever the property violence is inflicted, then the damage to police cars, the Mayor's house, and similar places that DOES harm those in power. While it is true that violence will be used to justify excessive police force, as we can see from the BLM protests and the Civil Rights movement before it, violence will be used on protesters either way. We're both aware of the way that even when no violence was used in recent memory the police still escalated force and attacked protesters who did nothing wrong, just the same as happened to King: https://www.geekslop.com/life/around-the-world/politics-and-legal/2020/does-this-propaganda-look-familiar-the-parallels-between-the-blm-movement-and-this-1967-martin-luther-king-jr-cartoon-portraying-protests-as-violent
My argument wasn't that any destruction is good and we should all burn cars because it will fix it, but that violence is only done to one side, property damage is done to the other, and should be seen as separate.
For the record, I do like you're writing, which is why I've tried talking with you about this in as reasonable a way as I could, but in the article none of this nuance was seen or expressed, there was no empathy shown for Malcolm X's position, and I think you should look at it again with fresh eyes because your argument that "violence" is understandable but not the correct direction ISN'T what I read, and others seem to agree with me on that.
Steve QJ:
“but you also used it when I said that the needle hadn't been moved.”
I don't mean to respond to your admission with a lack of grace here, I genuinely appreciate and respect the intellectual honesty. But I don't see what I'm supposed to do with your hyperbolic claim other than expose it. I didn't turn your position into something it wasn't, I pointed out that your claim that the needle hadn't moved and that things were in the same spot they'd always been, was untrue. It feels like this one was all you.
And yes, I referred to Martin's frustration with white moderates in my first reply. But surely you see that his frustration is in no way an endorsement of violence or rioting. Rioting, of the sort we saw in France, won't get anyone their freedoms. Because it's not designed to get anyone their freedoms. As King put it, it's socially destructive and self-defeating. It's different in every single meaningful way from a revolution against tyranny or a rebellion like Nat Turner's.
So from my perspective, it seems like our disagreement is based on a failure to differentiate between different types of violence and their aims. The article refers specifically to violence that achieves nothing. Violence that isn't intended to achieve anything. Violence that harms the oppressed rather than lifts them up. And criticised that.
Even the violence you seem to approve of, like damage to police cars or the mayor's house, who do you think pays for police cars? That's right, the taxes of ordinary citizens. Who was harmed in the attack on the mayor's house? Oh yes, his wife and their infant child. Think about who this hurts and who it helps.
You might claim that police cars and the mayor's family were collateral damage in the righteous struggle against the powerful. Okay, but what exactly do you think they want this mayor of a suburb in Paris to do? What is the gain that justifies this attack on innocent people? What, in the absolute best case scenario, could any of this achieve?
I didn't talk about Malcolm X in the article. So no, there was no empathy for (or mention of) his position. Because his aims and the aims of the rioters in France (or even the BLM rioters) were completely different. The situation he was fighting was completely different. And if I'd been fighting for civil rights back then, I'd have been right with Rep. Deberry when he said that the people destroying the community weren't part of his movement.
Because while I understand Malcolm's anger, while I'm sure every single black person in America back then felt his anger, I would and do condemn anyone who thoughtlessly turns that anger against their own community.
I did a little soul-searching after writing the original article.
Had I been too dismissive of the unheard? Had I failed to condemn the conditions that cause riots as vigorously as I condemned the riots? Was Malcolm X right when he said that the oppressors needed to see the alternative to a non-violent approach?
I’m not sure.
But what I am sure of, is that the rioters in France hadn’t tried a non-violent approach. The conditions they were in hadn’t caused the riots. And the riots certainly didn’t improve their—or their neighbours’—condition.
I described riots as a tantrum because tantrums are ineffective. They’re destructive. And they almost always hurt the person having the tantrum the most.
We don’t outgrow tantrums because we stop feeling angry or unheard. We outgrow them because, like King, we learn a
more effective language.
The problem with riots is that unscrupulous people use them to foment increased hatred for the rioters. And of course the conditions that motivated protest and riot never get a mention.
Just look at GWB's reaction to the looting in New Orleans; about the only time in his presidency that he showed any passion. His vehemence about punishments to come went over the line of justice deep into sadism.
For decades gay activism was founded on confrontational belligerence. The strategy was to proudly endorse the ugliest stereotypes, even unto standing before audiences and saying "yes, we do recruit children." The political message to the other 97% of the population was "we hate you." Public displays like pride parades were grotesque lewdness, as deliberately offensive as participants and organizers could manage.
Staging riots is every bit as clueless as that was.
Nicely nuanced again, Steve!
Reading the thread, I was thinking some of the same things you then so aptly expressed. Like the way your correspondent just lumped all violence together - if peaceful means alone are not moving the needle (er, well, haven't yet moved it all the way), then riots are OK, as if riots = productive violence.
I appreciate your distinction that unfocused riots are not a language, more like a screech. Much as I appreciate some of Dr King, I think you've extended his metaphor to include more nuance, still needed today.
One further point is that the volume of the screech is not a reliable indicator of the magnitude of the cause. So, say, people rioting in one geographic region and not rioting in anther, doesn't neccessarily mean that the former is motivated by a stronger injustice. Some cultures and subcultures are more ready to jump from words to violence, even given the same degree of stimulus. Also, a good deal of the violence, in France recently or in the US in 2020, was more opportunistic than cause motivated.
Personally, I don't think it's helpful to discuss the 2020 events as one thing. There were two relatively distinct things going on in the US. One was organized mass protests, almost exclusively in daytime with proper permits, and was mostly peaceful. A quite different group of people, overall, gathered in far smaller numbers at night, and were frequently violent. Some of the looters in our area appeared to be gangs coming in specifically to commit criminal acts for profit, opportunistically using the chaos but without any clear political goals.
Of course, sometimes the people planning on a night of violence peacefully attended the daytime protests as well. There are even videos of people switching from civvies to all black around twilight. But they were vastly outnumbered during the day, by peaceful protesters. So I'm not claiming the two things involved entirely different people, but the demographics of the daytime protests and the night time riots differed greatly.
So I believe there were the George Floyd protests (largely peaceful) in the daytime, and the George Floyd riots and looting (largely violent) in the night after the large bulk of the protesters had gone home. Conflating these two creates confusion at best, deception at worst.