The 100 Day Story

author: C.R.

Malcolm X had an array of many different viewpoints in his lifetime. From the young boy he started out as, to the grown man he came to be, his point of views were always in stark contrast to the more “accepted” ideologies at the time. Even as Malcolm X’s own ideologies began to change over time, specifically after his break from Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam, and after his break; it is quite simple to see that Malcolm X himself was a self-taught scholar who was always searching for the right way, among wrong ways, to do things. Which brings us to the focal point of this paper: With all of Malcolm X’s beliefs, there always a pro and a con to challenge the thinker’s original thought. Here we will examine three of the many doctrines of Malcolm X – including his “common enemy” theory, the question of violence for Uncle Sam without being violent within the United States, and the ideology of ridding one’s party of moderates or liberalists, even if they are of the same race as you; as well as analyze both sides of his arguments accordingly.

Malcolm was definitely a believer in the phrase “common enemy.” He’s known to have once said, “And what we have foremost in common is that enemy – the white man” (Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grass Roots, pg. 5, paragraph 1). In his doctrine, Blacks, Asians, Indians, and every other race, color or creed had a common enemy: that of which was the white man. He believed that the wherever the White man went, greed, corruption, and suffering followed; and that the if all the other races banded together in unity, they would be able to stop the oppressor in his footsteps once and for all – and hopefully send him back from where he came. He made a good point when he said that unity has, is, and will always be a beneficial factor in any of an oppressed peoples’ strategy to move towards freedom. If there is no unity, one cannot defeat his or her oppressor effectively. As Philip II, king of Macedon once said, “Divide and conquer,” so will someone’s oppressor think. As long as there is confusion, disorder, and animosity among leaders of the oppressed, there will never be an end to the oppressor’s rule.

However, Malcolm X’s viewpoint on the “common enemy” can be taken in another direction; a negative one at that. He was also known to have said once, “He’s an enemy to all of us. I know some of you all think that some of them aren’t enemies. Time will tell” (Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grass Roots, pg. 5, paragraph 1). Choosing to discriminate based on race has in most cases, if not always, proved a faulty strategic move among leaders in our world’s history. In Malcolm X’s case, here is one example: if he decides to separate himself from the white race, and choose to share his wealth with only the people who aren’t of the Caucasian nationality, then he could miss out on an opportunity that could only be offered in the White person’s hands, so to speak. He could also make the tensions between he and/or the Black race, and the white race a little tenser; which as we all know can cause violence, which makes peace, freedom, or equality an even harder goal to reach. Although unity is a crucial rung in the ladder of success; separatism, or self-rule, another doctrine which Malcolm X was not afraid to advocate for, can sometimes handicap your case.

Malcolm X often questioned the validity of the oppressed people’s violence for Uncle Sam overseas, versus their being non-violent within the United States’ borders. In other words, he was saying that he could not come to terms with the fact that “You bleed for white people, but when it comes to seeing your own churches being bombed and little Black girls murdered, you haven’t got any blood” (Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grass Roots, pg. 7, paragraph 3). He was drawing attention to the fact that when oppressed people show no action when their own people are attacked by another race, but are quick to go overseas and fight wars against people with whom they have no qualms, in a sense, these oppressed people are being bamboozled. Instead, he pushes that they defend themselves against anyone who threatens their livelihood; after all, it’s only fair and just. In other words, “be nice to people who play nice with you;” but if that person “steps out of bounds,” so to speak, you will have no choice but to defend yourself, as they would if the situation was the other way around.

Malcolm X went on to pose the question, “How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you are going to get violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else you don’t even know” (Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grassroots, pg. 7, paragraph 3)? From this one standpoint, one could get very hostile and aggressive – in essence, under the law they would be, or should be protected. If African-Americans had to fight wars defending America overseas, then in theory, why shouldn’t an African-American man be allowed to retaliate when he is being attacked, simply for the color of his skin? To answer this question, one would have to keep in mind that the goal of Malcolm X and other Civil Rights leaders at the time was to gain equality for the Blacks. One must also remember that at that time in America’s history, there were a lot of stereotypes circulating around America about African-Americans – some would say that they were lazy, and some would even go as far as to say that they were a violent people; but the biased, uneducated guesses could go on and on forever, until the end of time. The point being made here is that if African-Americans, in retaliation to the unfair policies and procedures that were being imposed upon them, began avoiding the draft and fighting back in their hometowns against the Whites people, the perpetuated stereotypes which they were almost branded with at birth, may have never died down; and inadvertently, hurt the cause that these Civil Rights leaders were fighting so adamantly to keep alive.

In his same speech, entitled “Message to the Grass Roots,” Malcolm X described a time in his life when he was in prison; and as he was in prison, he was reading an article in Time magazine showing “a little Chinese girl, nine years old; her father on his hands and knees and she pulling the trigger because he was an Uncle Tom Chinaman. When they had the revolution over there, they took a whole generation of Uncle Toms and just wiped them out. And within ten years that little girl became a full-grown woman. No more Toms in China. And today it’s one of the toughest, roughest, most feared countries on this earth – by the white man. Because there are no Uncle Toms over there” (Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grassroots, pg. 8, paragraph 2). Malcolm X was now making reference to the more moderate Black’s side of the Civil Rights Movement. He considered Martin Luther King, Jr. to be one and made it very clear that he did not respect King’s views. He believed that in order for a real change to occur in the United States, the radicals as some would come to call it, would have to rid themselves of the “semi-radicals;” all so that the cause would not be interrupted, or even slowed down just a bit. He makes a strong argument when he explains that no regime, country, nor empire ever succeeded by “remaining on the fence” on certain issues; especially in ones concerning the Civil Rights movement. But as we’ve seen with the previously stated viewpoints of Malcolm X, there are always two sides to every coin.

Malcolm X stated, “The Algerians were revolutionists; they wanted land. France offered to let them be integrated into France. They told France: to hell with France. They wanted some land, not some France. And they engaged in a bloody battle” (Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grassroots, pg. 9, paragraph 3 started on page 8). Here is where we see the downside to taking the “trail blazer” route. The results could be violent, fatal, and if plans haven’t been worked out correctly, the failed attempt at freedom could be detrimental rather than beneficial to your cause. Although freedom has been pushed way past due; using violence or even murder to get what you want could cause catastrophic effects in the long-run, and slow down what’s been done to date.

As we have now seen, any belief system, doctrine, or even school of thought can be picked apart and dissected in order to find the truest, most just, and very importantly, most accurate ideology to follow through with. While it may be true that people share a common enemy and banning together in the name of unity can create many bridges in the search for fairness and freedom, separating oneself from the world can cripple them and in some cases, damage everything they were trying to accomplish. Even though it isn’t fair that one must help another person when they’re in need; only to get slapped in the face afterwards, doesn’t mean that someone will not take notice and look past their prejudices. And although moderates and conservatives may seem to slow down what radicals are trying to do, the hope is that the revolution will be as peaceful as possible; and by deciding to rid yourselves of the liberals, you may be asking for a bloody war. This dissection of Malcolm X’s theories can be done with any school of thought; all that is needed is a bit of critical thinking and, an open-mind.