Book Review: The Autobiography of Malcolm X

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a collaboration between Malcolm X himself and Alex Haley. The book details his entire life and is easily one of the most powerful things I have ever read. The first thing you have to know is that Malcolm X was an ever changing and dynamic character. Any criticism you read of the man might be true depending on what stage of his life you are looking at. This seems pretty unextraordinairy, you could say that about anyone. The difference between Malcolm X's auto biography though, is how many times he went through a complete overhaul of his identity. He changes his names 3 times alone, each reflecting a new life, a new ideology, and a new kind of leader.

Malcolm X's most consistent quality is his "fire". It really defined him as a leader of the struggle, probably more so than his often confused ideology. This fire manifests itself in a variety of ways that make Malcolm so facisinating. Sometimes it is aimed at the collective action of the white man in the form of pure, unabashed truth telling. Despite the fact that he was never formally educated, his mastery of knowledge over the history of his people can indict even the most progressive whites of his time or any. No one is safe. He takes on the given racist institutions like prisons or the government, but he also takes down education and the media. He went after them in ways the more peaceful leaders did not. Every word is deliberate, every message is clear. It is almost hard to describe how blunt and truthful this man could be, the conviction he gave to his words made everything he said hammer home. No other word but "powerful" can convey this mans presence, even his literary one.

For the same reasons it was the most powerful book I ever read, it was also the most challenging. It challenged everything I previously thought about race and everything that ever taught me about it. The power behind Malcolm's accusations that welfare tore up his family or that the integrated school systems were used to ensure the demise of his education, had me seriously questioning these systems. Obviously I believe in integration and government assistance to the poor still, but this is why reading Malcolm was so challenging. He shook the foundation of what I know to be true. One line captures this perfectly for me. Alex Haley is telling Malcolm that whatever he says, the white publishers are contractually obligated to publish. X says he doesn't trust the white man, Haley assures him he can, and Malcolm responds: "You trust them and I don't. You learned about him in schools where he taught what he wanted you to know about him and I learned about him locked in the ghetto streets and in prisons - I will tell you about trust". This had me thinking about how in public school I never learned about Malcolm X, or Angela Davis, or Stokely Carmichael or any movement that was outside the most famous, non violent, civil rights  movements. I did learn about Christopher Columbus' heroic discovery of America, our heroic founding fathers, our historic sense of justice as a nation. Of course I knew all these things were just pretty pictures of our past that were painted to hide the real ugliness of it. What I never really suspected was that other movements and conditions were left out by design, in order to write off their importance, their reality, or even their existence. The most challenging and powerful part of this book was reading Malcolm lay these truths out in front of me and making me aware of how little I know about my own education.

But despite its power and challenge, there are some serious flaws in Malcolm, his ideology, and his book. Malcolm I believe was deeply sexist, which is a hard thing to admit, but ultimately true. It is hard to admit because he has so many speeches that really empower African American women, but he expresses too many times his belief in their fundamental weaknesses and toxicity to men. This duality made me uncomfortable and didn't seem all that useful to the narrative. I'll grant that it was at least honest. I've also mentioned before that his ideology was confused, but people often cite how his discovery of true Islam (away from the Elijah Muhammad Islam of Black America) and his pilgrimage to Mecca helped change his personal philosophy into one of brotherhood. Yet I find his understanding of Islam to be surprisingly flat. He points out that Muslims don't often care about color, that white muslims and black muslims work together sincerely, this leads him to believe that Islam is the only true religion of brotherhood and he doesn't hesitate to tell this to everyone. While I think he is right about the muslim community's regard toward race, he seems to completely ignore the history of violence within the religion as he uses it to assail christianity. This shows an unprecedented ignorance of history - it is fairly disappointing to see. Finally, the book glorifies his criminal past far too much. In its first chapter and a half, we are met with vivid and powerful memories of racism unlike anything I've ever read. Yet when Malcolm falls into the life of crime, it reads like a crime novel; drug runs, shoot outs, showdowns, the works. As destitute as he wants you to believe it was, it is hard to believe it when he treats his criminal self as a hero of the underworld. The re-birth into Islam then seemed insincere and caricatured. It made his transition away from this phase all too unbelievable. It set kind of an off pace for the rest of the book.

Overall though, reading the autobiography of Malcolm X is worth it. It is bound to inspire and challenge, but it is not guaranteed you will like it. After reading this book I think it is upsetting to hear Malcolm's constant comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. It is true they often criticized one another, but Malcolm was the fire under America's ass - his goals were not the same. This devotion to the struggle of his people, his willingness to burn himself to extinction in order to incite change...or else, makes for a very riveting and mind altering read. This book offers you something very deep; I think whether you walk away with it like Spike Lee did, or you walk away from it - you will not be the same after you've seen it.

Political: 5 Reasons Michigan Should NOT Allow Businesses to Discriminate

On December 2nd, Michigan's House approved the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The MRFRA simply stated bans the government from impeding on religious freedoms. This sounds like a nice, I don't want the government telling me what to do piece of legislation. However, the MRFRA will be used to justify discriminatory practices against members of the LGBT community. Businesses will no longer be required to offer goods or services to members of the LGBT community and there is strong evidence that many won't, this means many businesses would also be able to discriminate in hiring practices too. All on the basis that by not being allowed to discriminate, their religious freedoms are being inhibited. Many small government Republicans and Libertarians believe that legislation such as the MRFRA promotes freedom, some even go so far as to say all government regulations banning discrimination should be cut. To call this freedom is flagrantly inaccurate as it does nothing but limit the freedoms of American citizens. Furthering the effects of legislation like this so all businesses have the right to discriminate against whomever they want, will harm large swaths of the American people who used to be protected under the law. Libertarians and many Republicans believe that government intervention is no longer needed to stop discriminatory practices and so allowing these freedoms will mean less government oversight and depend on consumer awareness and activism to bring down discriminatory businesses. This is one of their basis for a free society. Here is why this is shamelessly incorrect: and why legislation seeking to limit government regulation against discrimination, like the MRFRA, should be stopped at all costs:

1. Government intervention has more power than consumer boycott to end discriminatory practices

Let the record show that corporations and businesses fear government regulations for a very good reason. That reason is that it causes a slew of consequences that hit them in their pockets. There are very few examples of consumer awareness and activism bringing down a corporation or a business with absolutely no government support. There are even times where, even with big government support, consumers were unable to stop businesses from unethical practices. Lets get into how governments can be powerful tools for the people and how, without government support, consumer awareness and activism would do little good against unethical businesses. The government can make businesses disclose unethical practices that they may wish to keep hidden from consumers, they can levy hefty fines, they can wield heavy taxes, they can even go so far as to seize incredibly unethical companies or firms and/or their CEO's or owners. Even the strongest consumer bases cannot stop unethical businesses in as swift a way as governments can. It may take several years before a company "goes under" because of unethical practices and this doesn't stop the owner or majority share holders from making money and doing the damage to communities that comes with discrimination.

For an example, take Mike Jeffries at Ambercrombie and Fitch. He was accused of discriminating against plus sized women causing consumer activism, a lot of people boycott Ambercrombie and Fitch clothing including big name celebrities. Despite a slight drop in sales, the company did not stop its discriminatory messages and Jeffries kept making $1.5 Billion dollars. What really began to hit the stock price, was the lawsuits that were coming out over his discriminatory hiring practices. The company had been sued at least 5 different times for a variety of discriminant cases including ethnic discrimination and ageism. Because these lawsuits were being won, consumers decided to shop there less. The government also imposed fines on the company for discrimination and kept a heavy watch on any future cases. Through a combined effort of government legal battles and consumer pressure, Mike Jeffries had stepped down. This does not mean that the company is going to stop being discriminatory, so the battle is far from over. The point though, is to demonstrate that government intervention is a tool that can help stop discrimination in ways that consumers cannot, as well as help consumers in their own endeavors.

2. Consumer awareness and action are not always enough

This segues into the next point which is similar to the first. While the last point demonstrated government capability, this point demonstrates the shortcomings of average consumers in their attempts to stop unethical and discriminatory practices. There are many ways that companies can be discriminatory without bringing attention to themselves as being so. Michigan is an At Will state and therefore does not have to provide you with a reason for why you get fired, if they fired you because you were gay you may have no idea that was the reason. It may take a long time for people to know enough to "out" companies as being racist, homophobic, or sexist. Or say you live in a small town in the Midwest. Often times these towns have a corporate headquarters, or a mine, a factory, a mill, a corporate farm etc... that runs the monopoly of employment in that area. If they decide to discriminate against members of the community, it can have economically devastating effects. Not to mention a boycott may cost others their livelihood and is consistently unlikely in these situations. Lawsuits though, call in the government or the power of the law, to safeguard against any harm caused by employment discrimination. Many Libertarians and Republicans would argue that another company would resurface in the area creating economic opportunity, but this is an unsubstantiated theory and we will discuss this later. They might also argue that the discriminated against may move, but this limits their freedom to live where they would like to live because of economic ostracism  - this does not sound like a free society to me. So given the lack of power employees and consumers have in certain situations, the government can be an effective tool for change.

To demonstrate that a boycott or consumer activism falls short without government support, the Chick - Fil - A case offers good insight. Chick - Fil - A engages in discrimination covertly by donating money to organizations that discriminate against members of the LGBT community and regularly violate gay rights. It took some serious digging to find this out. When consumers did find this out, there were widespread boycotts and condemnation of the restaurant. The restaurant continued to blunder through what many thought was a PR nightmare. It turns out though, that Chick - Fil - A is thriving, potentially doing better even. Of course, it isn't illegal to give your money to organizations that actively discriminate (I don't believe it should be, that isn't the point of this) and so there is no government intervention that turns up the pressure on this company to do the right thing. This is only one demonstration of how consumer activism can fall short without government action.

3. Free Market principles are only theories and may or may not come true

As stated before, Libertarians and Republicans believe that discrimination is wrong, but that it will be rooted out without government intervention. They think that by allowing the right to discriminate, through volunteerism and other free market theories, the problem will solve itself. Say you have a company that discriminates against black members of the surrounding community, here are some things that could happen according to free market theoretical situations: the company stops discriminating because it becomes less profitable to do so (either consumers make it less profitable via boycott or economic exclusion becomes nonsustaining), a rival business surfaces and offers business to everyone/just the discriminated against communities, internal company pressure forces new leadership (and I'm sure there are more). This is all possible, but this is also only a theory. There is no proof that these things would happen and allowing safety net regulations to be cut based on a theory with no proof is reckless and could cause greater overall harm. This is not to mention the historic examples of these theories not happening, making government intervention necessary (see the race riots Detroit). And even with government regulations and protections, there were over 93,000 charges of employment discrimination filed last year (2013), which says nothing of the unreported cases.

In the Economics of Discrimination by Gary Becker, trends of discrimination in companies are studied and labeled Taste-based discrimination. His studies show that unless drastic efforts are made to make all people as near equal as possible in the public eye and in qualification (and they are not in 2014, see section 5) then companies will continue to discriminate. He acknowledges that diverse companies have the likelihood of  being more profitable, but he does not believe they have that in mind when they do their hiring or performance reviews. When the perception of a whole group of people is of a low status, companies will hire and pay that group of people less. In part 5 I will go over exactly why the perception of certain groups is of low value, but assuming they are - according to Becker hiring and paying these groups competitively is not seen as an economically profitable decision. Further, these employees, because of the societal view of them, must work harder to justify their hire and rate of pay. This means it isn't just overt forces of racism that cause discrimination to occur, it is a more subtle racism that free market theories don't even begin to acknowledge in their solutions (again, refer to section 5).

4. Religious freedoms and freedom from the government should not be manifested in discrimination

This section is short and to the point. Religious freedom is important, so is living without the tyranny of law. However protecting citizens against discrimination is not an over reach of government power. Seeking to justify discrimination because certain religions don't wish to offer goods and services to certain groups of people is cultural relativism. This means we are acknowledging that discriminating against LGBT, though wrong, is morally right for that religion/culture and therefore they should have the freedom to do it. Yet our laws should not be dictated by cultural relativism because what is right for one culture or religion is not right for everyone. If we deem discrimination as a harmful act, as we all should because it is harmful, then we should not let any religion or culture do harm to any citizen only on the grounds that their religion says it is morally admissible to do so. We would not let men stone women because their religion dictates they do this in certain instances, so too should we not allow discrimination on the grounds of religion. Put simply, the freedom of one should not inhibit the freedom of another as much as can be legally controlled. If my religious practices are forcing you to move out of the community you live in or forcing you to be serviced/provided goods at a separate and potentially unequal business, then my religious practices should not be protected under the law.

5. There are large systemic problems in America that play a role in taste based discrimination

As stated before, the Libertarian/Republican theories of free market tend to ignore the problems of a more subtle and systemic problem. This means that the problems are more a result of a broken system and the subsequent perceptions than people's overt hatred of others. Many Americans may feel uncomfortable around gay people, they may feel women in power are bitchy, they may perceive black people as lazy. The largely constructed inequality among those in power and those without it is very black and white...literally. With inherent and constructed inequalities in this system it is easy for those in positions of power to look down on the societal status of those in need (even just in need of a job) by examining their marriage status, their education, their every day economic decisions. Yet gays cannot get married in many states, minorities generally have less access to education, and those in need often make poor economic decisions. It is true that not every minority is in need, not every gay person is without a partner, not every economically disadvantaged person is economically irresponsible - however the perception exists and this feeds a subconscious, taste based discrimination when it comes to selective employment and pay grades (see section 3) as well as who you offer your products to. These subconscious tendencies can ensure that discrimination will exist until these large systemic problems are fixed and they are far from being fixed.

For example look at the inequality between blacks and whites. Humanitarian and New York Times editorial author Nicholas Kristoff points to data that shows:

The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)

The income gap is 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967, black boys have a 5 year shorter life expectancy of white boys, Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students, they are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, and because of massive incarceration and inequalities in the justice system, black men are 70% more likely to go to jail (making it harder to get a job). Whatever is going through your head while you read those statistics could be going through the head of recruiters, hiring managers, CEOs, small Business owners etc...These problems are deep seeded and will remain because of government action and government inaction, as well as action on the behalf of American citizens. Until these problems are widespread addressed, discrimination will be a very real institution in our nation, despite what year it is.

So...

Obviously the government is far from perfect and obviously there are exceptions to everything that was said. Obviously not every company given the right to discriminate will. Obviously there are companies run by gay men, women, minorities. The larger point is that we should not be relying on theories to protect us from unethical business practices, but rather aggressively protective legislation. Discrimination is just one unethical practice, many Libertarians and Republicans would like to do away with environmental regulations and regulations protecting against consumer fraud. Yet, with employment discrimination it is a particularly vile plot. With employment comes empowerment and to legally protect businesses who discriminate against anyone on any unethical ground, is to encourage the dismantling of the economic empowerment belonging to those who are discriminated against. It makes matters worse. If it is true that young people are forward thinking and progressive, if it is true that we value diversity, then we would send any politician cutting protections for our already oppressed fellow citizens a clear message: we will not stand for discrimination of any kind, we demand legal protection for those being discriminating against, and we demand that the government stop this insidious plan to render itself obsolete in order pad its own bank account.

Essay: Peter Pan 1, Washington Redskins 0

I have seen a live production of Peter Pan the Musical on 3 separate occasions, I have seen the animated movie hundreds of times, I've read the book, I've even been on the themed ride in Disney World. This may lead you to believe that I am in some way a fan of Peter Pan. I'm not. I think the musicals are terrible (which is not to bash the brilliant young actors who star in them), the animated movie is probably the worst Disney film, the book is incredibly creepy, and the theme park ride is no Wicked Twister. Of course my feelings for Peter Pan are irrelevant, the Pan legacy is for children to enjoy and from what I understand they do. Here are where my feelings become less irrelevant: I'm concerned that kids are watching Peter Pan and enjoying it...because Peter Pan is really racist. This isn't a secret either, there is a strong history of racism towards Native Americans in Peter Pan stories. In fact the only reason I wanted to watch NBC's live production of Peter Pan the Musical was because I wanted to see how NBC would handle the racist depictions of Native Americans.

But let me back up. I think it is important to note that there are still plenty of racist depictions of Native Americans in 2014 America. I would say the worst perpetrator of this cultural appropriation is Sports. You have the Cleveland Indians, the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Kansas City Chiefs, and probably any number of smaller teams with similar names. The reason I believe sports are the most guilty is because it seems the most institutionalized. I'm unaware of any restaurant chains, or company names, or chocolate bars, or major brands that borrow (read: steal) from Native American culture. Which isn't to say those things don't exist, I'm sure you can find them, but none are more well known and vigorously defended as American sports teams. Which got me thinking about why Peter Pan hasn't changed over the years. Our sports teams cite reasons like tradition, and branding, and endearment toward a culture (all of which are terrible arguments, I'll get to that later), but what reason does Peter Pan have for not editing its racist content, especially since it is specifically designed for children. Put simply; why do we think it is O.K. to keep depicting these stereotypes when it is clear we have the capacity to change them?

But let me back up even further. I need to reiterate that this is not O.K.Cultural appropriation is hurtful. I think this is a hard thing for people to grasp because their culture is not as painfully distributed as that of the Native Americans. Redskin, for example. After the trauma (read: genocide) the Native American people have suffered throughout history, for white people to tell them that they have changed the meaning of the word redskin to simply a benign nickname is outrageous. We should not get to decide how a certain word, a word with historically painful connotations to a group of people, should come across to those people. But isn't it enough that Native Americans are saying they don't want to be depicted like this any more? This should be enough to make you stop dressing like them for Halloween, it should make you not want to get Native American Tattoos, or Native American themed clothing, and it should certainly make mainstream brands change their image. Why not? I've never understood why we should just go on offending people, especially people who have endured unfathomable offenses for many, many years. I'm not asking for laws that force the name change or organizational oversight, though that would be nice, I'm asking why the team doesn't change it when it is clearly hurtful to a group of people. I'm asking why fans don't feel the need to pressure their team to change the brand. I'm genuinely curious if it is because the pride and money and brand behind the word Redskin is, and Americans will admit this, more important than the pride and feelings and brand behind actual people. We are telling Native Americans that our symbol for them is more important to us than they are.

Back to Peter Pan. If you know the movie you know the brilliantly racist song "Why is the Red Man Red". The Musical has a song called "Ugg - A - Wugg", which has Native Americans singing utter gibberish in what can only be described as a parody of their language. Not to mention the Native Americans are prancing around in red face, doing stereotypical and, in all probability inaccurate, Native American things. However you can't just take them out altogether, they provide key plot points! I wanted to see how the NBC production would handle this dilemma and I truly believe they did not receive enough credit for what they did; they went over the top in an effort to make this less offensive. For one, they cast the actress who plays Tiger Lilly (the fictional tribes matriarch, which is actually pretty cool) with a girl who has distant ties to the Cherokee nation. This to me always seems like a cop out, like the "I'm not racist I have a black friend" argument. Yet it wasn't the only thing; they changed the lyrics in "Ugg - A - Wugg" to include actual Native American phrases, so it is less of an outright joke. The characters are not dressed like stereotypical Native Americans, they are referred to as islanders or simply Natives, and they aren't caricatured (saying things like, "me like Peter"). They seem to belong to no specific culture, if anything they might even be considered pacific islander. Which, don't get me wrong, is still far from perfect. The point I'm trying to make is every one was so busy bashing Christopher Walken's acting and talking about how boring it was, that they didn't give credit to the production for really trying.

Notice the sea shells? Eh?

That isn't entirely true. The New York Times had made mention of it, so did some other major arts and entertainment commentators. They pointed out that NBC tried to make Peter Pan less racist, but kind of as an after thought. No one though, at least in my opinion, has given them enough credit. The production team at NBC responsible for putting this together acknowledged that the cultural appropriation was offensive and they made a concerted effort to change it. They changed the establishment of Peter Pan. They changed Peter Pan because it was the right thing to do. Not because hundreds of Native Americans would be tuning in, not because they would make money on the deal, but because they found a reason to change it. There is no way to know why for sure, it could have been disingenuous, they may have just feared the backlash from the PC crowd. Even then, that means this major network felt accountable. I believe that is more than you can say for sports teams. They may never change their branding. While I agree that a team brand is different than a depiction of real people in fiction, it stands that both these depictions have real world pain associated with them. As passive fans and consumers, we have not created the backlash that NBC would have gotten for running a racist production. We are too afraid that allowing the Politically Correct movement to make significant changes in sports branding we are allowing our masculinity to be be challenged. Well I'm here to assure you that there is nothing weak about asking a brand to reconsider its approach, there is value in standing up for those being made fun of. Native Americans have truly endured, they are still here, we shouldn't be treating them like they aren't. It's time to grow up...

Book Review: The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is the proud owner of a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics, which is great, but his work in The Price of Inequality is far from peaceful. The book is a non-stop assault on austerity and the politics of the 1%. Stiglitz uses vast amounts of data, ranging from social experiments to primary economic studies, to explain exactly what is wrong with our economy, the politics surrounding it, and how to fix it. The amount I learned from this book will have me running back to it again and again. Why? Why read this book more than once or reference it on a weekly basis? Because it will help you understand who is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in, and no one is safe.

Stiglitz rips up NeoLiberals like Clinton, Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Progressives. This is because Stiglitz has no time for partisan name calling, he has an economy to save. His agenda is simple: point out that wealth inequality and poverty are gaining momentum and harming a vast majority of the American People. Check. Point out that this massive amount of inequality and poverty is deliberately caused by the wealthy, as it is in their best interest. Check. Demonstrate that both government action and inaction are just as much to blame for this inequality and poverty as the wealthy are. Check. Dispel any myth that the impoverished and less fortunate are a necessity in America. Check. Outline a series of comprehensive political moves that would balance the budget, lessen the amount of poverty and inequality, and protect the US consumer/economy. Check. If these issues interest you, regardless of political affiliation, you should read this book. Even if these issues don't interest you, you should own this book. That way, when you're sitting around and wondering why your four year degree was so expensive, you can look up that education funding was cut - raising the cost of tuition - and then that same money was given to students in the form of loans so that the schools could still get paid, but banks can make money off people going to college! Boom! Now you know.

Not impressed yet? In the age of the internet where people explore and express their feelings about economic policy via memes it is frustrating that there isn't a lot of substance behind them. This is what I love about Stiglitz. He has a level of ferocity that makes his work exciting and dynamic, his lack of political affiliation helps him stick to principles, and he explains the motivations behind major political policy that things like a meme or a fancy youtube video cannot. So if you're left leaning, you're not just making the empty claim that the minimum wage should be raised, but instead you're explaining to a crowd of adoring fans that the reason it hasn't been raised is because it cuts into profits in a way that can't be avoided...unlike taxes. Or maybe you're right leaning, but instead of complaining that our jobs went over seas or into Mexico, you're tucking your kids in at night with a bedtime story all about how free trade agreements allow doing business in deregulated markets incredibly cheap and now kids just like them are being worked literally to death because we don't have protective tariffs that deter businesses from going elsewhere for cheap labor.

Stiglitz turns policies of any party inside out so you can see the lobby at work, what government action or inaction lined whose pockets. He analyzes how our billionaires and millionaires are plaguing the entire planet, with a process called rent seeking. It is where a few vastly rich people own everything, every single thing, and allow you to use it for a price. Monopolistic cable and utility companies, dominating telecommunication companies, bullying corporate farms, tech giants, Too Big to Fail banks that owns everything you think you own, etc etc...I can almost guarantee you are frustrated by rent seeking in some capacity and if you want to know why, I cannot recommend this book enough.