Skip to content

Malcolm X: Separation vs The United Nations

October 26, 2010

I feel that the ideas Malcolm X portrays about separation would have further influenced segregation rather than help it. He claims that by total separation from the white man we can help to better segregation. I disagree with this. How can we help segregation by totally removing ourselves from it? Yes, he brings about a good point in that the white man wants the black man under his jurisdiction so he will, “integrate faster than he”ll let blacks separate.” However, complete separation would do nothing but leave the United States with two separate sides, The Blacks and Whites. It would be just like the Civil War with the North and the South. We do not want two sides of the country fighting, do we?

Malcolm X is too one sided. He feels that violence is the key if the oppressor is using violence. Yes, this is to some extent correct, but rather than separation I feel his ideas of human rights are much more productive. Bringing the United Nations into the dispute would help reduce Uncle Sam’s american laws in front of a world court. Malcolm X is completely right when he states “being here in America doesn’t make you an American. Being born here in America doesn’t make you an American.” Everyone is born with the human rights of being an american, however blacks did not receive these. They were unjustly treated against the constitution, and denied the right to vote against the constitution. Through the United Nations, a change could really happen, where through the United States government, change would happen over an eternity of time.

Malcolm X is characterized through this speech by his willingness to turn to violence. He directly opposes the non violent actions of Martin Luther King and states the only way to beat violence is to use violence. His ideas are in some way correct, but violence is never the answer. The best answer is that which involves law. Since the United States government was so corrupt at this time, Malcolm turned to the idea of human rights, rather than the idea of civil rights. I truly feel that if somehow the United Nations could have been involved segregation would have been more easily handled.

  1. Neil Rabinowicz permalink
    October 26, 2010 10:40 PM

    I like this post a lot, but how does it relate to class? Would you say that Malcolm X could be more closely associated with Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, or some other philosopher?

    I agree with you when you say that total separation is NOT the answer to ending segregation. According to Locke, everyone is born with equality, which was obviously not the case for blacks in America. It sounds to me like Malcolm X wanted to assert his authority and would have done anything he could to do so, meaning he portrays some of Machiavelli’s leadership characteristics. Also, it looks like he felt threatened by the whites and felt like he was in Hobbe’s definition of the state of nature. Do you think he would have been more successful if he would have taken a more peaceful approach or do you think he acted the right way?

  2. jaclburr permalink
    October 27, 2010 8:59 PM

    I agree with your comments on segregation. If every time two groups disagreed, they merely set up different areas to live and never worked on coming together as one, what kind of progress would that be? The real way for everyone to be equal is to be equal together. I think the violence and negativity you speak of is probably what makes Malcolm X not quite as highly regarded through time as someone like Martin Luther King Jr. Granted, he was in a mistreated state, frustrated, and did have good ideas that made sense regarding said situation. Sometimes violence does seem like a good option, when you are not getting the attention you need. Nevertheless, I agree that it is never the best answer, and that more peaceful ways are more likely to gain the respect and cooperation of others.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: