i bring this up because i watched malcolm x today and something like that can't help but get you thinking. what was malcolm x trying to say? what were his contemporaries saying? what were his contemporaries saying about malcolm x? i'd say my previous knowledge about malcolm x was minimal. my passing experience with his life and his beliefs occurred only when he happened to intersect the life of someone i was reading about. dr martin luther king is the respected preacher of non-violence, malcolm x has always been presented as more polarizing and not as easily digestible; and i didn't really know why. and i still don't.
one wonders where figures like dr king and malcolm x have gone. i'm sure people are still carrying on their spirit and their works, but i couldn't tell you who these people are, or what they ally themselves with. louis farrakhan? al sharpton? jessie jackson? almost as foreign to me as yasser arafat or benjamin netanyahu would be. and it's not just because i'm neither black or middle eastern. i could hardly name and identify the main political players and leaders of america, much less china or taiwan. i'm just uninformed.
in collapse, jared diamond tells us that the modern country of which the highest proportion of its citizens belong to environmental organizations is the netherlands. the dutch are thus, from one perspective, the most environmentally conscious people in the world. the reason for that? most of holland is below sea level. should the dikes burst that hold back the ocean, or should the ocean rise above the level of the dikes, holland would be lost. global warming might eventually over take california? it would take holland first. that's why they care.
so is the moral of the story that if you're not in danger, you are less likely to be active and aware? maybe. after all, if i were the victim of constant racism, or if my peers were more in tune with the world at large, i'm sure we'd have more conversations about these things and i'd know more by association. instead i find that we usually go to black people for black history, asian people for asian history, and our textbooks for american history. and anything that falls outside the realm of our personal experience is relegated to the back pages.
history was, by far, my best subject in school. but somehow living history has never captured my attention as much as learning about events of a hundred, fifty, or even twenty years ago. which is weird right? because the america we live in today, the america that we hope to live in tomorrow, should concern us more than anything that has already happened, right?
even with the turbulent middle east and the recent israel - lebanese war, i knew only as much as i could glean from casual readings of magazines and newspapers. in essence, my views were quickly shaped by one or two news sources and maybe one conversation with a concerned friend. it's easy to be lost in an ocean of misconceptions and simplistic bullet points when you know nothing about the shit that's going on all over the world.
so i have to ask, if we're all in deep shit, why aren't we doing anything about it? or rather, why aren't i doing anything about it? if only from an educational perspective? to gain an educated opinion about any of it?
"niggers are scared of revolution
but niggers shouldn't be scared of revolution
because revolution is nothing but change
and all niggers do is change
because niggers are me
and i should only love that which is me
i love to see niggers go through changes
love to see niggers act
love to see niggers make them plays and shoot the shit
but there is one thing about niggers i do not love
niggers are scared of revolution"
-the last poets, niggaz are scared of revolution-
0 comments:
Post a Comment