MovieChat Forums > Malcolm X (1992) Discussion > NYC names street after Elijah Muhammad

NYC names street after Elijah Muhammad

posted 2 years ago by EleazarHisSon (750)
14 replies | jump to latest

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-elijah-muhammad-street-renaming-harlem-city-council-national-of-islam-20230216-zknnnflrtfb2felf2itz2dazj4-story.html

The New York City Council on Thursday approved a plan to name a Harlem block in honor of Elijah Muhammad, the controversial late leader of the Nation of Islam.

The bid to name the intersection of W. 127th St. and Malcolm X Boulevard as “The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad Way” proved the most contentious element of a Council bill drawn up to tag honorary names on 129 public spaces in the city.

Muhammad, a Chicago religious leader who described white people as “devils,” is seen by some Americans as an inspirational figure for his work championing Black empowerment. But critics view him as a voice of racism and antisemitism. Muhammad died in 1975.

“He is not worthy of having a street co-naming in the City of New York, and we should not even be considering this,” Councilman David Carr, a Staten Island Republican, said in a committee hearing on Thursday morning that moved the bill to a full Council vote.

“He fails every test we could possibly put forward: the test based on the values and views of today, and the values and views of the times in which he lived and worked,” Carr said at the Parks and Recreation Committee hearing.

But Carr acknowledged many of the people honored by the legislation are “absolutely worthy,” and he voted to move the bill.

The bill would name blocks for Wilbert Mora, a New York cop killed in the line of duty; Clifford Glover, a Black boy who was killed by the police in 1973; and Kristal Bayron-Nieves, a cashier killed in a shooting at an East Harlem Burger King; among many others who did not attract debate.

[...]

Barron charged Thursday that opponents of the Muhammad co-naming had not brought the same energy to pushing back against street names that honor American slaveholders.

“You’re all right with Washington Ave., Jefferson St.,” Barron said, referencing streets named for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, two slaveholders. “You said nothing.”

[...]

At a Council hearing last month, Barron lashed out at the Anti-Defamation League — which lists Muhammad in its glossary of extremism — saying that it lacks the “moral authority” to censure prominent figures in the history of the Nation of Islam including Muhammad, Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan.

Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam in the 1960s, in part over Muhammad’s disengagement with the civil rights movement.

The three Black leaders “really have saved so many people in our community, revived our communities,” Barron said last month.

Farrakhan, 89, has continued to lead the Nation of Islam, and has drawn criticism for a litany of antisemitic and homophobic statements he has made. In 2018, Farrakhan tweeted: “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.”

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Even setting aside Elijah Muhammad's anti-Semitism and Black separatism (which was supported by many white supremacists), and even ignoring the possibility that he may have played a part in Malcolm X's murder, it surprises me that anyone who has high regard for Malcolm X, as I generally do, could honour the man that said this following X's assassination:

"Malcolm X got just what he preached...We know such ignorant, foolish teachings would bring him to his own end."

[–] NorrinRad (5468) 2 years ago

As a teenager in the 70's living in Chicago, the Nation of Islam had an outsized impact on all things in that city. From religion, to politics, to civil rights, to business NOI was a force that could not be ignored. By no stretch of the imagination could Elijah Muhammad be called anything more than a false prophet and manipulative messiah to people who needed a way to both pushback against racism and overcome oppression.

Like King, Malcolm X and so many other voices picked by those oppressed, the oppressor doesn't get to decide who are their appropriate heroes and villains. History is littered with controversial figures who get recognition for the wrong things.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Yes, but we now have the benefit of hindsight, and whilst I believe in the ongoing celebration and acclaim of Malcolm X, I don't see how his enemies, including people who may have had a role in his assassination, can still be honoured.

It's actually an INSULT to Malcolm X to honour Elijah Muhammad, but sure, knock yourself out... 🙄

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You're not an American. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Stick to the affairs of things going on in YOUR COUNTRY.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

That sounds very bigoted and xenophobic to me. Are you a bigot/a xenophobe?

And in view of how oppressive and influential US culture is on the rest of us, maybe YOU Americans should stop fucking inflicting YOUR values on the rest of us. You're the problem here, pal. Not me. Now, keep your fucking US agendas to your own country and STOP imposing them on Europe, Asia and Africa, okay?

[–] NorrinRad (5468) 2 years ago

For many Malcolm X being honored was/is an insult to MLK. Context, time and perspective are the mirror that one needs to use to understand just what has happened and just what Elijah Muhammad is being recognized for.

I'm not one of those who thinks he deserves to get a street named for him and yes I do believe his personal failings is a disqualifier. For me that has nothing to do with Malcolm X.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

That's a reasonable response.

I personally believe that Malcolm X and MLK complimented one another, and each brought a valuable contribution to the civil rights movement, and society as a whole. Also, I personally believe they weren't quite as disparate and divided in their beliefs and goals as many believe.

Malcolm X moderated his stance towards the later years of his life, whereas MLK spoke quite critically of liberal centrists.

[–] NorrinRad (5468) 2 years ago

Malcolm X moderated his stance towards the later years of his life, whereas MLK spoke quite critically of liberal centrists.

You probably need to moderate your own statement through the lens of time because what you project as a morality hit on liberal centrists was more a call to "Step Up" and be more "Woke".

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"...because what you project as a morality hit on liberal centrists was more a call to "Step Up" and be more "Woke"."

Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

[–] NorrinRad (5468) 2 years ago

Hmmmm, maybe me just challenging you to define your interpretation of MLK speaking quite critically of Liberal Centrists.

Care to share?

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

There have been a few occasions where MLK spoke critically of 'centrists' and 'liberals'. Most of the time it was in the context of criticising capitalism, a position that a wholeheartedly share, and thus don't regard as 'too radical', but this is the quote I particularly had in mind:

'First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.'

I've been accused of being a 'moderate' on a few occasions (or maybe it's just me feeling bad for referring to myself as thus), so I'm curious what is meant here. I think direct action is *essential* in some instances (e.g. ending Apartheid in South Africa), but there may also be instances where the ends do not necessarily justify the means, even with respect to issues as important as racism.

For me it depends what is at stake. If it's *Black lives*, then clearly many of us will feel that direct action is essential. But if it's another form of justice, that isn't necessarily existential, then we must fight for that justice, but it may not necessarily justify bloodshed/potential acts of violence.

[–] NorrinRad (5468) 2 years ago

Malcolm X moderated his stance towards the later years of his life, whereas MLK spoke quite critically of liberal centrists.

You probably need to moderate your own statement through the lens of time because what you project as a morality hit on liberal centrists was more a call to "Step Up" and be more "Woke".

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Just know that the poster you're talking to is NOT AN AMERICAN and is playing a game where he tries to play both sides to earn people's trusts here, particularly that of Americans. That's his game. He cozies up to Americans about things he couldn't possibly know anything about, so he can start arguing with them about their own history and politics.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

You've got an obsession with me. It's unhealthy. Get a grip, and get over it. And set your xenophobia aside. The US is not the centre of the universe.