Tag Archives: Integration

Malcolm X — Why Integration Will Never Work in the U.S.

Q.  Malcolm X, why do you oppose integration?

A.  It won’t work. It doesn’t solve the problem. Do you know what integration really means? It means intermarriage. That’s the real point behind it. You can’t have it without intermarriage. And that would result in disintegration of both races. The Negro is better off by himself, so he can develop his character and his culture in accord with his own nature.

Negro leaders in private conversation admit this. But not publicly. They are in a spot, trying to explain to the masses of Negroes what they have got out of integration. The leaders have benefited, but the people they are trying to lead haven’t got any benefit.

Q.  As you see it, has the integration drive failed in this country?

A.  Yes, it has failed. Schools are becoming more segregated. Housing…all phases. Job segregation is one of the worst situations. Washington D.C., is one of the best examples of how integration has failed. I know about the desegregation of the theaters and restaurants and all that in Washington. But the only Negroes who have been helped by that are the Negro bourgeoisie. They are the only Negroes who can afford to go to the theaters and the white restaurants. New York, which is supposed to be liberal, has more integration problems the Mississippi.

Q.  Did you think there can ever be real integration of the black and white races in this country?

A.  No. If it were possible, you could point to some examples of it. But there is not one place in this country which is really integrated. When people look for examples of integration, they look to other countries, like Brazil. But I don’t consider Brazil integrated, either. It is true that the Negroes and whites there have married. But Brazil is only mongrelized. Not one black man is prominent in Brazil. The Negroes there are still at the bottom. 

Q.  What do you favor to help solve the race problem in the U.S.?

A.  I favor, building up living conditions, schools, jobs. That’s the heart of the problem. I want to take Negroes out of the ghetto and put them in good neighborhoods in good houses.

Q.  Would that make trouble, cause property values to fall?

A.  It is bound to depreciate the property of the white man living next door. The first thing that the black man has got to do is straighten out the evil conditions in New York City‘s Harlem and the other ghettos. Not only materially, but morally and spiritually. We’ve got to get rid of drunkenness, drug addiction, prostitution and all that. We need a program to educate the people of Harlem to a better sense of values.

When ghetto living seems normal, you have no shame, no privacy. You don’t realize that you don’t have these values when you’ve known nothing but ghetto moral conditions.

Q.  Won’t your program lead to increased friction between the races?

A.  I would say that trouble is building up. The year 1963 was a dangerous year, as everybody admits. The Negro leaders used the March on Washington as an escape valve. But the Negro masses, realized that they really got nothing. They are disenchanted. When the weather warms up, they will be in the streets demonstrating. They are tired of turning the other cheek. The whites don’t do it. Now you have the whites demonstrating against school integration. When you have these two elements coming together, you are going to have an explosion.

Q.  Are you going to help produce this explosion?

A.  My movement won’t promote the explosion. It would come anyway. I am not for or against violence. I am for freedom, by whatever means necessary.

Q.  Are you in favor of a Negro political party?

A.  Yes. The Negro should have his own party, a black party. Negro is the wrong word. It does not have any scientific meaning. I’ll form a black political party. I won’t run for any office. But I want Negroes to be politically mature. Then there will be less likelihood of their being exploited by crooked politicians.

Q.  What would be the party platform?

A. Freedom, justice, equality for the black people of this country. It would teach them to vote black. This doesn’t mean it will teach them to be anti-white. We are pro-black, not anti-white.

Q.  You claim that the Muslims are not a hate movement, yet you teach that the white man is a devil—

A.  We are speaking of the collective guilt of the white man. The Muslims are only expressing what the Negroes as a race believe. If I can point this up, it will make the white man see the seriousness of the problem. 

Q.  What do you see as a real solution?

A.  The only real answer if for our people to go back to Africa. But that will come much later. Right now, we need immediate relief from suffering and oppression. We don’t want welfare programs. They create laziness. We need programs by which the Negro can clean up the Negro community materially and spiritually. We need jobs. We need to own and operate our own businesses. Instead of “sitting in” we should buy in. If the Government does not let us go back to Africa, then we should have a black nation here.

Q.  Which States would you want to take over for your black nation?

A.  I never heard Mr. Muhammad say, I hope he has in mind Florida and California. I like it where the weather is warm.  

Q.  How many Black Muslims are there?

A.  No one knows but Mr. Muhammad. 

Q.  How many do you expect to have in your organization?

A.  I hope to organize the 22 million black people in America.


This story originally appeared in the March 30, 1964, issue of U.S. News & World Report

It’s Bigger Than Football: Why Charlie Strong is Representative of SO MANY Mis-guided African-Americans

From the moment that the ‘good folks’ at the University of Texas (UT) settled, and yes I do mean settled, for Charlie Strong as their new head football coach I knew that he was doomed.

Actually, when I heard that Strong accepted the UT job, I openly questioned what in the world could he have been thinking? There was no conceivable way that Charlie Strong should have left the charlie-strong-1University of Louisville in favor of becoming the head football coach at the University of Texas; the only way that such a move made any sense was that maybe, just maybe, Strong was oblivious to the racial realities that governed the great state of Texas. There is a popular saying that says, “everything is bigger in Texas”; and after living in this state for over a decade, I must agree that this state’s unofficial mantra has to be ‘either go big or go home’. Unfortunately for those blacks seeking association with whites, such extremism applies to racial matters within the great state of Texas. I privately hoped that prior to signing his Faustian deal, someone who had Charlie Strong’s best interests at heart would kindly remind him that Austin, with all of its liberal elements, was still located within “the great state of Texas.”

As stated above, things were bound to be particularly funky for Strong at UT when one considers that he was not even on the ‘short list’ of candidates that tremendously influential alumni and boosters felt capable of addressing the Herculean task of reconstructing the University of Texas Longhorn football program that Mack Brown had run into the ground.

There is no clearer sign that the most powerful elements of the University of Texas community were greatly disappointed with Strong’s selection than the vitriolic rhetoric hurled at the new hire by longtime Longhorn booster Red McCombs. McCombs referred to Strong’s hire as a “kick in the face” to boosters such as himself by UT administrators.

According to McCombs, the former owner of the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, Minnesota Vikings and co-founder of Clear Channel Communications, “I think the whole thing (the hiring of Charlie Strong) is a bit sideways. I don’t have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator. But I don’t believe [he belongs at] what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin.”

Unfortunately for Charlie Strong, he failed to understand that the duties associated with being the University of Texas head football red-mccombscoach extended further than the gridiron. The UT position, like most prestigious athletic positions, is akin to an ambassador position that requires socializing with and winning over wealthy boosters and alumni who under other circumstances would have little, if anything, to do with African-Americans or the issues facing the young Black males who serve at their behest on the gridiron. Put simply, such individuals have carefully crafted lives and social circles that by design do not include African-Americans. It is for such reasons that racially conscious African-Americans realized that it was only a matter of time before trouble and turmoil found Strong in Austin. Sadly, Black America has seen this scenario unfold in a host of arenas.

There is an unspoken truth among African-Americans that is rarely discussed in the presence of “mixed-company” that goes like this, success and longevity for African-Americans at an institution such as the University of Texas or even a mundane job hinges less upon their ability to fulfill the job duties and more upon their ability to fit within the dominant work culture.

Although it is rarely commented upon in public, conforming to and accepting the denigration that naturally flows from a socially offensive and outrageously discriminatory dominant culture is the path that African-American professionals must travel if they have any real aspirations to “get ahead” in America.

Unfortunately for African-Americans, their foolish decision to focus exclusively on integration and not pursue entrepreneurial endeavors at every turn has left them largely beggars, if not parasitic, in regards to employment opportunities from an often hostile white community that consistently verbalizes its unwillingness to share economic resources.

Nevertheless, whites hostility toward a figure such as Charlie Strong or any other African-American working in their midst rarely results in ut-3the vanquishing of Negroes from their presence. In many ways it appears that Negroes are more committed to working for, spending their money with, living among, and forcing themselves into white social circles than they are at either providing a future for future generations of Black America or healing themselves from the damages that result from their interactions with an overtly hostile white America.

In the end, I guess it is to be expected that Strong, and millions of others, will continue their dastardly fight to maintain their close, yet not quite intimate, association with an overtly hostile white community, it is what Negroes do after all.

What is most saddening of all is that I really do not think that Negroes such as Charlie Strong know any better; and I tell you, it is late in the game to be that damn stupid or naïve.

Dan Freeman

© Manhood, Race, and Culture, 2016.

Why Michael Bloomberg is Preaching Against ‘Safe Spaces’ for African-Americans on Predominantly White Campuses

I admit that my exposure to former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is fairly limited to the rather frequent visits I took to Harlem during his time in office. This period is particularly significant to me as it allowed me to witness significant portions of Harlem USA, the Mecca of Black America for much of the 20th Century, being lost to encroaching whites. One thing is for certain, Michael R. Bloomberg has frequently behaved antagonistically toward African-Americans.

So I was not particularly shocked when Bloomberg continued his pattern of animosity toward our community during his recent Michael Bloomberg 1commencement address at that God-forsaken place known as University of Michigan (Ann Arbor). The former Mayor once again displayed his staunch opposition to all policies that could potentially benefit African-Americans, particularly Black males. Bloomberg used his time under the beaming spotlight that a commencement address provides to attack the proliferation of ‘safe spaces’ on today’s collegiate campuses. What follows is a portion of Bloomberg’s message.

The most useful knowledge that you leave here with today has nothing to do with your major. It’s about how to study, cooperate, listen carefully, think critically and resolve conflicts through reason. Those are the most important skills in the working world, and it’s why colleges have always exposed students to challenging and uncomfortable ideas.

The fact that some university boards and administrations now bow to pressure and shield students from these ideas through “safe spaces,” “code words” and “trigger warnings” is, in my view, a terrible mistake.

The whole purpose of college is to learn how to deal with difficult situations — not run away from them…one of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a safe space, because it creates the false impression that we can insulate ourselves from those who hold different views.

We can’t do this, and we shouldn’t try — not in politics or in the workplace. In the global economy, and in a democratic society, an open mind is the most valuable asset you can possess.

I am not surprised by Bloomberg’s view of ‘safe spaces’ on American collegiate campuses; please make no mistake about it, Bloomberg’s daunting address was aimed at those spaces created to aid African-American males during their pursuit of academic success.

To be honest, I expected for Michael Bloomberg to be absolutely clueless regarding the utility of ‘safe spaces’. When one considers that the vast majority of whites, particularly upper-middle class and wealthy whites, live in a reality that makes the entire world a ‘safe space’ for them and their offspring they most certainly have little consideration and even less understanding of the much needed reprieve that others need to even breathe.

Bloomberg’s contention that collegiate campuses provide an opportunity to “learn how to deal with difficult situations — not run college 2away from them…the most dangerous place on a college campus is a safe space, because it creates the false impression that we can insulate ourselves from those who hold different views” reveals much about a class of whites who so routinely operate from a “white equals right” privileged position that they no longer realize their good fortune.

Considering that so many fail to understand the highly offensive racial sub-discourse that individuals such as Michael R. Bloomberg spew during their failed attempts at addressing racial matters, I cannot resist the urge to offer a translation of what the commencement speaker uttered in Ann Arbor. What Bloomberg actually said was:

The whole purpose of college is for ‘minorities’ to learn how to deal with the difficult situations that they will eventually be placed within – and that lesson can never be to run away from them…one of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a ‘safe space’, because it creates the false impression for African-Americans that they can insulate themselves from more powerful whites who hold different views, view that will not only negatively effect their and their loved one’s lives. They need to learn early on that they will never be able to force whites to abandon their position as it would call for them to work against their own self-interests; a position that will never be taken, particularly for the sake of racial equality.

One may have been able to excuse Bloomberg’s statement were it aimed at aiding those collegians’ who have been so ill-treated that they have been forced to seek the refuge of a ‘safe space’. Make no mistake about it, predominantly White campus are typically not a college 5welcoming environment for African-American teenagers. This matter is made exponentially worse when one considers that the aforementioned African-American teens have been protected by doting parents who have instilled not only sensible values such as respecting authority figures and you are going to have to “work twice as hard to get half as far”, but also placed precious monetary resources as well as bountiful hopes and dreams into their high school graduate.

What a figure such as Michael Bloomberg fails to consider is the catalyst behind ‘safe spaces’. Bloomberg, and those like him, never have to worry about the hellish existence that haunts so many African-American collegians. They have no idea of what occurs during a typical day on a white campus. I am absolutely certain that Bloomberg could never imagine that a significant portion of the harassment that African-American males experience comes at the hand of white professors and teaching assistants during pivotal moments that could be used to encourage Black undergraduates, however, they are invariably used to drive home personal perspectives that their writing is subpar and they do not belong on a collegiate campus. It is in these spaces that the gaps in Michael Bloomberg’s thinking glow like a fluorescent light on a starless night.

In many ways, Bloomberg’s statement is calling for African-American collegians to simply, “Eat Shit and Grin!” To their credit college 1African-American collegiate activists have publicly fought against such advice with such vigor that even collegiate administrators have been forced to not only acknowledge the issue, but also take tangible steps to address the matter. If Bloomberg, and those of his ilk, had their way, African-American collegians would not only be spread out across the campus, but also advised to redirect their activist energies into more productive areas such as diligently working to integrate, if not assimilate, themselves into ‘mainstream’ America.

Fortunately, African-American collegians are pressing the matter and refuse to believe that they are devoid of power or doomed to live in a world where individuals such as Michael Bloomberg, and those of his ilk get to make all of the rules.

Dr. James Thomas Jones III

©Manhood, Race and Culture, 2016.