Philosopher views
HOW TO REFUTE THE USE OF MALCOLM X’S PHILOSOPHIES IN L-D DEBATE
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- MALCOLM X IN RELATION TO SEVERAL COMMON VALUES AND/OR CRITERIA
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
HOW TO REFUTE THE USE OF MALCOLM X’S PHILOSOPHIES IN L-D DEBATEThere are many different ways to refute Malcolm’s philosophies regarding human rights and revolution. First, as suggested earlier, pacifists may refute Malcolm for his endorsement of violent means of achieving equality. Both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, for instance, would object to Malcolm’s use of violence because, in their view, violence can only beget violence, whereas love could melt hatred and encourage their respective oppressors to recognize and dignify their humanity. Thus, Malcolm’s slogan “any means necessary” is unjustified as a means for gaining equality because it undermines the value of human life. Second, human rights may be less valuable than civil rights (or nationalistic values) because they lack any sense of enforcement. Even if human rights are more valuable theoretically, that value is undermined by the unwillingness of nation-states to comply with international human rights norms. One can not value human rights above civil rights if there is no possibility of achieving those rights. Furthermore, internal national laws like due process protections make civil rights and nationalistic values imminently enforceable. Third, the distinction between civil rights and human rights that Malcolm’s arguments rigidly enforce is highly questionable in terms of L-D debates. Values such as freedom, justice, individualism or communitarianism are supposedly universal, not national or civil, values. Freedom and these other values are human rights, which Malcolm would not object to if he were around to do so today. Endorsing freedom, due process, or civil rights for one group does not constitute support for oppression or oppressive value systems; rather it constitutes support for human rights. Thus, an opponent’s attempts to utilize human rights as a counter value or reason to criticize your value may fall well short. Fourth, Malcolm’s human rights stance is limited primarily to policy/implementation differences between civil rights and human rights, not a comparison of the moral value or worth of human rights to many other values. In an abstract comparison of values, Malcolm provides little reason to believe that human rights would always trump other concerns or values. Certainly in comparison to civil rights this is true. However, it is questionable whether values which have little or not relation to civil rights are also subject to the same moral hierarchy. One might argue quite convincingly that freedom (or another value) ought to take precedence over Malcolm’s conception of human rights or that a particular value encompasses Malcolm’s human rights. MALCOLM X IN RELATION TO SEVERAL COMMON VALUES AND/OR CRITERIAFREEDOM: Malcolm fights for freedom in a certain sense, but be wary of your definition of freedom. If the definition is not universal, i.e. it does not include everyone or comes solely from Western conceptions of freedom, then Malcolm’s conception of human rights stands in marked opposition to this version of freedom. If, however, freedom is defined universally, then Malcolm’s defense of human rights’ preeminence serves as a useful rationale for the paramount importance of freedom above other values. JUSTICE: Malcolm’s beliefs may or may not support justice, depending on how this value is defined as well. Justice, according to Malcolm, must be achieved utilizing any means necessary. Thus, if an opponents value is justice, but their criteria limits the pursuit of justice in some way (for example safety, democracy, etc.) then Malcolm’s defense of “any means necessary” would suggest that the value wither cannot be achieved through that particular criteria, or that the value in question is not worthwhile since it will be a necessarily stunted, skewed version of human rights. On the other hand, Malcolm’s struggle for equality for blacks in America does suggest that, argued correctly, justice is a paramount value which should be pursued. EGALITARIANISM: Malcolm teaches that egalitarianism is one of the highest values possible. Not only should one possess human rights, but all humans should possess them equal to any other person. Equality was the ultimate goal in Malcolm’s struggle to end the oppression of black America, even though he sought a return to Africa or a sovereign nation for all blacks in America. He perceived that the power structure in the United States would never truly eliminate racism, no matter how hard he and others might try. Jim Crow laws seemed to be stark evidence confirming this belief. Malcolm thought, oddly enough, that everyone deserved equal status as humans, afforded human rights no matter where they might live. Malcolm’s fight against racism and for human rights through “any means necessary” is thus strong support for the value of egalitarianism. BIBLIOGRAPHYAleinikoff, T. Alexander. “A Case for Race-Consciousness.” COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW. June (1991): 1060-1125.
1990).
Anthropological approaches to law and society in conditions of globalization.” THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY. Winter (1995): 791-835. Khan, Ali. “Lessons From Malcolm X: Freedom by Any Means Necessary.” HOWARD LAW JOURNAL. (1994): 74-133. Feldman, Steven. “Whose Common Good? Racism in the Political Community.” GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL. June (1992): 1835-1877. Gallen, David. MALCOLM X: AS THEY KNEW HIM. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992). Goldman, Peter. THE DEATH AND LIFE OF MALCOLM X. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979). Nier III, Charles Lewis. “Guilty as Charged: Malcolm X and His Vision of Racial Justice for African Americans Through Utilization of the United Nations International Human Rights Provisions and Institutions.” DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. Fall (1997): 149-189.
MALCOLM X, ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, JR. (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1975). Peller, Gary. “Frontier in Legal Thought III: Race Consciousness.” DUKE LAW JOURNAL. September (1990): 758-847. Purcell, Will and Weaver, Chris. “The Prison Industrial Complex: A Modern Justification for African Enslavement?” HOWARD LAW JOURNAL. Winter (1998): 349-381. Roberts, Dorothy. “Symposium: Fidelity in Constitutional Theory: Does The Constitution Deserve Our Fidelity: The Meaning of Blacks' Fidelity to The Constitution.” FORDHAM LAW REVIEW. March (1997): 1761-1771. Strickland, William. MALCOLM X: MAKE IT PLAIN. (New York: Viking, 1994). Wood, Joe. MALCOLM X: IN OUR OWN IMAGE. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992). X, Malcolm and Haley, Alex. THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MALCOLM X. (New York: Grove Press, 1965).
-----. MALCOLM X SPEAKS OUT. Ed. Richardson, Chermayeff, and White. (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1992). -----. MALCOLM X SPEAKS: SELECTED SPEECHES AND STATEMENTS. Ed. Breitman. (New York: Pathfinder, 1989). Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|