Malcolm X at the University of California: Striking at America's Myths

In his October 11, 1963 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Civil Rights leader Malcolm X attacked white liberals and integrationists alike. His proposed solution was black nationalism: “the only permanent solution is complete separation or some land of our own in a country of our own. All other courses will lead to violence and bloodshed.” Malcolm X spoke neither for unity nor harmony. Not all civil rights workers wanted to join into the larger American society. In contrast, Malcolm X spoke for division. His goal was to defy America, not to join it.

In 1963, many Civil Rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., advocated integration, fairness, and mutual love and understanding. In contrast to that message, which was (and still is) controversial among white conservatives, Malcolm X spurned integration. To this day, many White conservatives call Martin Luther King Jr. a radical. Malcolm X really was a radical. In his Berkeley speech, Malcolm X sought neither harmony nor compromise. He used polarization as a rhetorical technique. His goal was not to get all people to agree with him. Instead, he spoke to the angry, highly motivated minority. Malcolm X made no effort to get his enemies to love him. Nor did he express love for his enemies. While mainstream Civil Rights leaders wanted United States to live up to its revolutionary values, Malcolm X, as we shall see, rejected those values as utter hypocrisy.

Malcolm X was self-educated, stunningly intelligent and articulate, immaculately-dressed in conservative business attire, and unyielding in his principles. Those qualities came to the fore in his Berkeley speech.


Starting with a Bang

The speaker’s belligerent introduction made his attitude completely clear, when he calmly greeted “friends and enemies” in the audience:

“Mr. Moderator, students and faculty here at the University of California, brothers and sisters, friends and enemies. The bell up there took so long to stop ringing, I began to suspect that it was probably being manipulated by an integrationist!”

Redefining Black History

This speech challenged the received views of American history. Indeed, one of American education’s greatest scandals is to ignore Black history. When I attended school in Virginia in the 1960s, our textbook literally taught that 1619 – when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia – was a “red letter year.” In contrast, Malcolm X denied that either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War was fought for everyone’s freedom:

“According to what we were taught from the white man’s textbooks in school, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were two wars fought on American soil supposedly for freedom and democracy. But if these two wars were really fought for freedom and human dignity of all men, why are 20 million of our people still confined and enslaved here in America by second-class citizenship?”

That is, of course, a good question.

I think many academic historians of the 21st Century would agree with Malcolm X about the Revolution and Civil War. Yes, people of the time all understood that the Civil War was about slavery. At the same time, Malcolm X had a point – an uncomfortable point – when he added “and democracy.” Furthermore, given the values of the Revolutionary War, Malcolm X inquired why so many Americans were left with “second-class citizenship?” For, indeed, voting rights, educational opportunities, and economic opportunities often remained closed in 1963 to the freed slaves’ descendants. Malcom X’s point was quite radical: for he challenged accepted principles that were, indeed, taught in schools at the time – and which, to a large extent, still are in 2022.

Yet, while Americans routinely call America the land of freedom, Malcolm X asks the same question that Martin Luther King Jr. asked: why is not the same freedom available to everyone? Malcolm X’s disagreement with King was not so much about the problem. All Civil Rights leaders of the time understood the problem quite specifically. Malcolm X, however, disparaged integration as a solution. That is why he specifically challenged American Revolutionary ideology. He said that the Revolution’s goal was “to free the American white man.” Indeed, using the rhetorical trope of hyperbole, Malcolm X insisted that “our people remained slaves here in America:” Instead, he said, American freedom was all about White people’s freedom:

“The truth is that the Revolutionary War was fought on American soil to free the American white man from the English white man. The Revolutionary War was never fought to provide freedom and a democracy in this white country for the Black man. Our people remained slaves here in America even after the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“In fact most of the white Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were slave owners themselves.”

Given that history, Malcolm X implied, how could integration even be possible? To Malcolm X, the entire American experiment arose from enslavement and oppression. The majority could triumph by exploiting the minority. What, he wondered, could possibly make the majority agree to give up that power? And, so, his proposed solution was black nationalism, not integration. He did not seek to make his enemies into friends. He greeted his enemies. He challenged them. He sought to separate himself from them. As a rhetorical tactic, polarization does not look for agreement. It looks to separate the hot from the lukewarm.

______________

This concludes my series about Black History Month 2022. Of course, African-American speeches are important all 12 months of the year, and I will continue to often write about African-American speakers.

Here are my previous posts from Black History Month 2022:

James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths

In "The Fire Next Time," James Baldwin Warned America Not to Hide from Evil

 

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Oprah Winfrey's Eulogy for Rosa Parks

 
Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Were the Canadian Truckers Treated Worse than Martin Luther King, Jr? Jonathan Turley Made a Ridiculous Argument

______________

P. S. Pretty much everyone comments about Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dramatic, sermonic style of delivery and fiery language. Malcolm X was much different. When he spoke, he often sounded more like a college professor than a radical. Actually, with his conservative suits, neat haircut, un-stylish eyeglasses, conversational speaking style, quirky humor, and extraordinary vocabulary, he could have been mistaken for a college dean. I think, in some ways, his speeches are all the more chilling because he sounded so thoughtful and cogent. Like King, he was martyred by his political enemies. Yes, the enemies of whom he spoke so lightly were quite real.