by Carl McRoy
Militant narratives
“Do you consider yourself militant?” asked a reporter.
“I consider myself Malcolm,” was his quick-witted reply, accompanied by his signature smile.
He was born as Malcolm Little, died as El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, is best known as Malcolm X, and would have been 100 years old on May 19, 2025. Malcolm was a master narrator. Whenever reporters tried to get him with a “gotcha question,” he got them instead.
Unfortunately, we still need to reform and transform narratives in 2025 as much as in 1925. In fact, we need to redirect some narratives, and outright reject other narratives. Some people are using false narratives to try and ship us back to 1825, or maybe 1725, or even 1625.
This nation’s narrative wars never end. They only switch from hot to cold. Then they go back from cold to hot. In between those stages, there might be some temporary lukewarmness that tricks us into thinking the war is over. Some people thought the war was over in 2008.
They said America became a so-called post-racial society because a Black man, other than the butler, moved into the White House. Seventeen years later, we find ourselves in a hot narrative war once again. What can we learn from Malcolm 100 years after his birth, and 60 years after his death, to arm ourselves in this narrative war?
Self-definition
The first narrative Malcolm took charge of was his own self-definition. As with others in the Nation of Islam, he underwent a name change. When asked if he had gone to court to change his last name, interviewers got much more than expected. Since Malcolm insisted on “X” being his last name, the interviewer asked what his father’s last name was.
That’s when Malcolm punctuated the argument by saying his father didn’t know his real name. Why? Because the real names of Black people in this country were destroyed through the institution of slavery. While many of us might debate the value of renaming ourselves with a letter, or with an Arabic name, this was an effective narrative-check against a whole panel of TV interviewers.
The short dialogue at the beginning of this article showed how Malcolm X was vigilant about his self-definition from all angles. Instead of being questioned about his name, this time he was asked if he identified with a controversial adjective – militant. Malcolm recognized the landmine set in his path and nimbly evaded it quicker than Jack jumped over the candlestick.
What was the potential peril of answering wrong? As columnist Norman Franklin recently wrote, adjectives can “smuggle judgment into our minds under the guise of descriptions. Before we have a chance to weigh the facts, adjectives have already told us how to feel.”
Self-determination
Malcolm X repeatedly described his political, economic, and social policy as Black Nationalism. By that, he meant that politicians who represent Black communities should be from those communities and answerable to those communities. They shouldn’t be transplanted from the outside, or compromised by allegiances to people and groups from the outside. Black people should patronize Black businesses and Black businesses should serve the needs of their communities. Together they can recirculate and reinvest their wealth into their own communities; rather than paying for goods and services from people outside the community who take the profits to another community. The social application of this meant that Black people should construct harmonious relationships that fulfill their needs, since it seemed like we would never be fully welcomed in other settings.
Does this sound like too much Blackness in comparison with the supposedly colorblind Martin Luther King? That’s what happens when we only listen to a few cautiously curated soundbites from the so-called “I Have a Dream” speech (which is admittedly more catchy than “Normalcy – Never Again.” However, if we keep following Dr. King’s ministry, we’ll hear him preach that he was “Black and proud” and “Black and beautiful.” MLK also called for Black “bank-in” and “insurance-in” movements in order to “strengthen Black institutions” and “build a broader economic base.” Sound familiar?
Self-discipline
Part of obtaining and maintaining self-determination was self-discipline. Malcolm exhorted “the American so-called Negroes” to “stop carrying guns and knives to harm each other, stop drinking whiskey, taking dope, reefers, and even cigarettes. No more gambling! Save your money. Stop fornication, adultery and prostitution.” He said if we do those things and “elevate the black woman; respect her and protect her,” then we have assurance that “God will be with us to protect and guide us” (speech at the Harlem Freedom Rally, 1960).
This self-discipline wasn’t an exercise of respectability politics to earn rights or admiration from outsiders. It was to be practiced within the Black community, for the Black community. It was for the purpose of being right with God and treating people right. His spiritual convictions were at the core of his version of Black Nationalism.
Self-defense
Another application of self-definition and self-determination was the right to self-defense. His rationale was based on Constitutional rights, historical precedent, and self-preservation being the first law of nature. These lines of reasoning stimulated questions that challenged the philosophies used by groups like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
If White Christians can do theology in a way that allows them to wage just war, why can’t Black people? Why should Black people be the only ones peacefully praying for gradual acknowledgment of their humanity? Why should Black people serve in the military and fight for rights oversees but be pacificists when our rights are violated at home? Doesn’t the Second Amendment to the Constitution apply to Black people? What’s wrong with self-defense in an era when racist vigilantes routinely eluded arrest or were acquitted even if they went to court?
Malcolm X repeatedly stated that he wasn’t advocating for Black people to be aggressors toward anyone else. He just said to reserve our rights to self-defense like everyone else. One of my favorite lines from this rhetorical theme was, “When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, he [Uncle Sam, the Man] didn’t say get nonviolent. He said Praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition!”
Interest convergence between opposing philosophies?
What makes the self-defense argument intriguing is that the goal of nonviolent protestors was to get legal protection for human rights. These legal protections require law enforcement to be effective, and we all know law enforcement comes armed for the task. Not only that, but there were also some who protested nonviolently, accompanied by armed groups like the Deacons for Defense. Maybe these different organizations and leaders weren’t as polarized as first appeared? Maybe it takes a combination of strategies to replace oppressive narratives with empowering ones? Maybe Malcolm still speaks.