Robert Grigore

Prof: Troy D. Smith

HUSB 303 (B1)
11/2/2013

Assignment 2

1. Summary
Malcolm X often warned about racial war; segregation could not survive without violent
struggle. Blacks would not remain passive, X told whites. He believed that God was going to
judge white America. However, his religious affiliations were about to change as he broke with
Elijah Muhammad.
We have already seen that Malcolm X was completely obedient to Muhammad from 1948
through 1963. Muhammad's word was gospel, and Muhammad rewarded Malcolm for his
service with leeway to speak as he wished and wealth for his family. The two were close.
However, a schism occurred. Muhammad and his people argued that Malcolm's ninety-day
silencing and separation was due to his disobedience; Muhammad had commanded his ministers
not to comment on the tragedy. When Muhammad let Malcolm speak in his place two weeks
afterward, X decided to mention the Kennedy assassination as God's judgment of America and
then he brought up in his speech "chickens coming home to roost.

Martin Luther King, Jr. lived the dream he preached. He acted as if equality under the law
and the dignity of the black person were already widely recognized facts. King developed further
as time progressed. He came to emphasize love as primary over justice, and so integration
became his ideal as the embodiment of love. King believed that God was acting to liberate
people in history. He regarded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as great progress, but then sought to
bring genuine voting rights to the black community. While Johnson stalled, King pressed on with
marches, despite the killing and beating of his people. During this time, King believed in whites.
However, the Watts ghetto revolt in Los Angeles in 1965 brought Malcolm X's
philosophy into practice. King was disturbed and realized that the problem of racism ran deeper
than he realized. King was criticized by the rioters.
Chapter 9 begins Cone's analysis of the two thinkers' similarities and differences. They
did not associate, largely because of King's desire not to be tainted by Malcolm's bad reputation.
However, they fought for the same goal, the liberation of black people. This was their common
goal, but they had different means of achieving it. Cone believes that King's strategy worked best
in the South, Malcolm in the North, King for Christians, Malcolm X for those alienated from
Christianity. However, Cone believes both had flaws in their strategies. King simply never
understood the degree of black oppression and alienation due to his middle-class background. He
could not understand the black ghetto in the same way that Malcolm X could. Malcolm X's
power came from African heritage, not Christianity. He believed in self-confidence. Malcolm
understood that race riots would come, but Martin understood the downside of violence well
whites would simply use violence.

Both Malcolm and Martin had deep flaws as human beings; they must not be seen as
messiah figures. They completely missed sexism as a profound evil. They were both strongly
patriarchic, and were no different from whites on this score. Black people cannot excuse or
justify their sexist attitudes. Malcolm was much worse than King on this issue and was partly
misogynistic. In fact, many black leaders today are upset about how they treated and spoke about
women at the time. Due to the decay of black families, black leaders focused on getting black
men to be men, and often ignored women. However, over time, various black women entered the
movement, like Ella Baker, Fannie Lou Homer, Jo Ann Robinson, Mary Fair Burks, and many
others. Oddly, however, early figures in black history like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du
Bois were friendlier to women's rights.
In Haleys book I found the following information. Like a hustler, Malcolm tries to
understand his enemys psychology in order to guard against danger and tries to develop a strong
public image to inspire fear. As Malcolm deals with the resistance of the police and the white
press to his political activities, he never loses sight of the necessity of knowing how they work in
order to be able to challenge them effectively. For instance, after visiting a Los Angeles
newspaper for a week, Malcolm becomes ready to launch an informed counterattack, in the form
of his own Muslim newspaper, Muhammad Speaks. Furthermore, as an activist Malcolm
carefully shapes his public image, just as he does earlier as a hustler. While his obsession with
defending his image leads Malcolm to near-death in a duel with West Indian Archie, it allows
him to deal effectively with the white press. Not afraid to ignore questions or answer questions
that are different from the ones the press poses him, Malcolm uses his smooth-talking skill to
fine-tune his public image to his advantage. His understanding of the similarity between hustling

individuals and hustling the public enables him to stay out of the way, temporarily, of the
dangerous intentions that his ideas provoke.
The skills Malcolm acquires as a hustler in Harlem also help him turn his ambitions for
the expansion of the Nation of Islam into a reality. As Malcolm rapidly rises through the Nations
ranks, a religious fervor for recruitment drives him, and he eventually crosses the country to
found temples in Boston, Harlem, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. His experience as a
quick judge of character helps him run the new temples smoothly, and his knowledge of street
psychology and slang makes him more persuasive than his Christian competitors to many young
black city-dwellers. Still, with all his credibility, he finds the majority unreachable, plagued by
social, spiritual, economic, and political problems. The most important part of Malcolms Harlem
experience is the knowledge that blacks must be aggressive about helping themselves if they
want to improve their situation.
Although Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad both fight for black rights, they differ in their
estimation of how the struggle for these rights should be carried out. While Elijah Muhammad
wants American blacks to adopt an Asian identity and speak Arabic, Malcolm continues to
believe in a version of his fathers pan-Africanism, inspired by Marcus Garvey. While Elijah
Muhammad wants American blacks to be their own kind of middle-class Americans in
conservative suits, Malcolm remains more interested in the plight of the poor. Both men agree
that the correct response to segregation is not integration but cultural and economic separation.
However, they could not disagree more on how to achieve these goals: while Elijah Muhammad
wants to keep his organization wholly apart from politics, Malcolm often wants to be engaged in
action for racial justice. That there are such differences of opinion between two leaders within
the same group illustrates the complexity of the race issue in America.

2. Community involvement.
Because Romania is my home country and because it is one of the most important
community involvements in the last two decades when the Romanians are protesting against the
government decision, this protest caught my attention.
Thousands of Romanians took to the streets in across 50 cities in Romania and abroad,
including Washington D.C., Berlin and Amsterdam to vehemently oppose the passing of the draft
legislation on the open-pit cyanide-based mining project at Rosia Montana. According to Gabriel
Resources Ltd., the Canadian company behind the scheme, the plan for the project is to dig up
the estimated 314 tons of gold squirreled away in Rosia Montana using an astonishing amount of
40 tons of cyanide per day. Chanting slogans such as Together We Save Rosia Montana, the
Romanian protesters expressed their resistance to the mining project and demanded the
governments resignation, while sending a similar warning signal to the opposition. In Romania,
protesters have announced their intention to keep demonstrating, until the governments
measures are revoked.
The draft law was adopted during a governmental session, which had not been publically
announced, as properly required. Passing the draft legislation marked a significant shift in the
Romanian governments attitude toward the project, given that Gabriel Resources, the Canadian
mining company behind the project, had been fighting for over 10 years to obtain its approval.
The governments recent decision also comes in utter disregard for the Romanian populations
long-term and clearly expressed opposition against the mining project, due to the aforementioned
catastrophic environmental and cultural consequences. Thus, during the January-February 2012
anti-governmental protests organized throughout the country, many Romanians demanded that

the Rosia Montana project be ceased. Whilst in opposition to the then liberal government, current
Romanian Prime Minister his Social Liberal Union (USL), an alliance of several political parties,
supported the protesters claims and vehemently opposed the Rosia Montana mining project.
Since gaining power, the Prime Minister and USL have radically changed their position, as now
they seem to be even more willing than the previous government to bend the Constitution and the
law of Romania, including on many of the issues that they once considered inviolable, in order
ensure the project goes ahead. Moreover, in December 2012, the wide majority of residents of
Alba, where Rosia Montana is situated, made a conscious decision to boycott a local referendum
regarding the resumption of mining in the Apuseni Mountains and the gold mining exploitation
at Rosia Montana.
The Romanian publics global protest movement is the biggest manifestation of its kind
since the 2012 anti-governmental protests and the second largest since the 1989 Piata
Universitatii peace protests organized by intellectuals and students who demanded authentic
democratic reforms for the country.
Romanian leaders would not hesitate to crush popular uprisings through violence and force. It is
nothing new for Romanians that had lived over 50 years under a repressive communist regime
where no form of protest was allowed and fear was an almost institutionalized as a way of living
enduring abuses without protesting was a way of life.
Silence too often has allowed Romanian politicians to make important decisions without
consulting the public. They often act as if they would never be accountable to the population as if
its voice doesnt exist or doesnt matter.
The current protests represent a testament to the Romanian publics increasing determination not

just to make its voice heard, but to be respected and adequately represented by those in power.
The people-government clash could determine the role that the Romanian population will play
from now in making decisions about the country. It may also decide who is entitled to enjoy the
countrys natural resources and how it is acceptable for the latter to be extracted in order to
achieve successful economic development. At the same time, the war is about the importance
of preserving patrimony in the face of development.
This type of population vs. government struggle is certainly not new. It has been amply
seen throughout Latin American and Africa. But it is new in European countries. Yet, numerous
companies are lurking closer and closer to the rich European resources. Romanians have the
opportunity to set a historic precedent in Europe and the world. They can demonstrate that the
will of a united people can overcome an incompetent government and a greedy company. They
can show that the only option is to fight to the bitter end and give it all, regardless of the size of
the opponent, with the conviction that good will prevail.
3. Questions:
1. What makes the politicians think nobody will take actions at their own actions?
2. What makes the politicians think if they are the power are settled there for the entire
period of time without being judge by the population they serve?
3. Why the population of some countries are blind at the political action and they are not
interested? It might be because their voice was never heard by someone before or just because
they are going with the flow?