Jul 1, 2015 05:26 PM
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ore-157435
EXCERPT: [...] It is important to begin by challenging the claim that radicalism and fundamentalism are interchangeable. Fundamentalism is an ideology and all ideologies share one critical flaw. They begin with a basic proposition (for example, the lives of all nonbelievers in religion X are expendable) and assert that proposition as a true statement about the world and then proceed to interpret all evidence in the light of that purported truth; thus ideology short-circuits effective means of assessing the reality of social, economic and political situations. Radicalism, in contrast, is significantly (but not entirely) post hoc — it is inherently pragmatic and arises in response to real threats, actual slights, suffered deprivations and obvious oppression.
When we take radicalism to be the same kind of thing as fundamentalism, it is a short step to the third charge — that radicalism is a way of life. This is clearly mistaken. Radicalism responds to real conditions of oppression that bring it into being, thus, seeks to eliminate the very conditions that make its existence necessary.
If one accepts these two clarifications, it also becomes clear that it is a mistake to think that radicalism is necessarily bound up with violence. Yes, it can be. America’s founding fathers brought two nations into open warfare in the name of freedom — to disrupt the status quo imposed from without by Britain. This is a form of radicalism represented by Malcolm X. When he exhorted black Americans to stop singing and start swinging, he openly affirmed the legitimacy of violent self-defense against white supremacy and its murderous practitioners. Malcolm certainly sought to disrupt the status quo of white supremacy by unsanctioned means. But what of King teaching that blacks must love whites in order to ease their insecurities and fears? You should accept this as black radicalism as well.
The more obvious radical aspect of King’s teaching has to do with the use of nonviolence as a doctrine of insurgent political action. While today political marches in the name of racial justice are common, in the middle of the 20th century large scale protests cut directly against the prevailing sentiment that blacks had no right to express themselves politically and publicly. King’s challenge to various police forces to exact violence on a passive gathering sought to effectively and strongly disrupt a white supremacist status quo.
But here is another aspect: King’s teachings also sought to disrupt the status quo within the black community, where despair risked deactivating the will to political action and rage compelled increasing numbers of black youth to begin considering taking up arms. King always held that passive resistance was the strategy of the truly strong person at a time when the black status quo had reason to view white Americans only as enemies, as undeserving of blacks’ love.
[...] However, maybe you are more concerned with this question: Which flavor of black radicalism should be embraced — Malcolm’s or Martin’s? In a society in which blacks must insist and remind their fellow citizens that black lives matter, that really is the question, isn’t it? Maybe we should turn to history as our guide....
EXCERPT: [...] It is important to begin by challenging the claim that radicalism and fundamentalism are interchangeable. Fundamentalism is an ideology and all ideologies share one critical flaw. They begin with a basic proposition (for example, the lives of all nonbelievers in religion X are expendable) and assert that proposition as a true statement about the world and then proceed to interpret all evidence in the light of that purported truth; thus ideology short-circuits effective means of assessing the reality of social, economic and political situations. Radicalism, in contrast, is significantly (but not entirely) post hoc — it is inherently pragmatic and arises in response to real threats, actual slights, suffered deprivations and obvious oppression.
When we take radicalism to be the same kind of thing as fundamentalism, it is a short step to the third charge — that radicalism is a way of life. This is clearly mistaken. Radicalism responds to real conditions of oppression that bring it into being, thus, seeks to eliminate the very conditions that make its existence necessary.
If one accepts these two clarifications, it also becomes clear that it is a mistake to think that radicalism is necessarily bound up with violence. Yes, it can be. America’s founding fathers brought two nations into open warfare in the name of freedom — to disrupt the status quo imposed from without by Britain. This is a form of radicalism represented by Malcolm X. When he exhorted black Americans to stop singing and start swinging, he openly affirmed the legitimacy of violent self-defense against white supremacy and its murderous practitioners. Malcolm certainly sought to disrupt the status quo of white supremacy by unsanctioned means. But what of King teaching that blacks must love whites in order to ease their insecurities and fears? You should accept this as black radicalism as well.
The more obvious radical aspect of King’s teaching has to do with the use of nonviolence as a doctrine of insurgent political action. While today political marches in the name of racial justice are common, in the middle of the 20th century large scale protests cut directly against the prevailing sentiment that blacks had no right to express themselves politically and publicly. King’s challenge to various police forces to exact violence on a passive gathering sought to effectively and strongly disrupt a white supremacist status quo.
But here is another aspect: King’s teachings also sought to disrupt the status quo within the black community, where despair risked deactivating the will to political action and rage compelled increasing numbers of black youth to begin considering taking up arms. King always held that passive resistance was the strategy of the truly strong person at a time when the black status quo had reason to view white Americans only as enemies, as undeserving of blacks’ love.
[...] However, maybe you are more concerned with this question: Which flavor of black radicalism should be embraced — Malcolm’s or Martin’s? In a society in which blacks must insist and remind their fellow citizens that black lives matter, that really is the question, isn’t it? Maybe we should turn to history as our guide....