Should we eliminate Malcolm X Boulevard next? O-FISH-L wants his pound of flesh.

A recent UniversalHub post called "New Orleans is removing its monuments to slavery; should Boston do the same?" promoted an interesting and nuanced debate.

The statues that are being taken down in New Orleans glorify confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee. They stand, or stood rather, as a symbol of white supremacy -- men who chose to defend a social and legal order that gave white men the right to own black men as property, not people. These men led their states to secede from the United States to maintain an immoral social and legal order and to risk civil war.

There are people in New Orleans who defend these symbols of white supremacy to this day. They do this in a republic premised on democratic rule, one citizen one vote. The regime of white supremacy denied the vote to people of color post civil war through the 1960s, and to the present day we continue to see state government used to deny the vote to people of color with voting laws with disparate impact.

One comment on the UniversalHub post was a flip-the-script whats-good-for-the-goose race-based counter argument that asked, "Should we eliminate Malcolm X Boulevard next?" This is a passive aggressive argument O-FISH-L is making but we'll take it at face value. Malcolm X was not a slave owner nor a man who defended white supremacy, to the contrary, he fought for African-Americans' best interests in the ways he knew how, with advocacy. One implication of O-FISH-L's question is that removing statues that honor white supremacy is a slippery slope. If that, what's next? And eventually, what's the limiting principle?

Rhetorically, O-FISH-L asks for one standard for 'monuments to slave owners' and the same standard for an, as in one, African-American Muslim minister human rights activist, who according to O-FISH-L, 'celebrated the assassination of JFK, preached black supremacy and opposed integration,' which is the entire, unsubstantiated basis for O-FISH-L's argument. O-FISH-L argues the comparison is equivalent, that honoring white supremacy is equivalent to honoring a Muslim minister human rights activist with alleged moral deficiencies. The former was was a social and legal order for half the nation, the latter one man's life and his advocacy. Interestingly, O-FISH-L's equivalence raises Malcolm X's stature.

O-FISH-L restates the question posed by the original UniversalHub post just a bit from 'monuments to slavery' to 'memorials to racists and anti-Semites' and says, because his reasoning is so compelling, we should start with Malcolm X.

If we're going to eliminate memorials to racists and anti-Semites, start with the guy who celebrated the assassination of JFK, preached black supremacy and opposed integration.

One reply asked him to support his assertions of fact about Malcolm X, he declined.

O-FISH-L seems to be saying "slavery is immoral but so are these things about this man so.. equal treatment." O-FISH-L's underlying premise is that Malcolm X, who a black man, should suffer the same indignity to his legacy as the white men who defended the white supremacy of slavery.

Dave-from-Boston responds:

Malcom X never celebrated the death of Kennedy. In an interview shortly after the assassination of JFK he was asked of his reaction. In short he said something to the effect that "the chickens were coming home to roost." In this same interview he was never asked to explain or elaborate on that comment.

Predictably the public reaction was harsh and condemning. Several days later, in a separated interview he did explain the context in which he made the comment. Again, to summarize, he said that the killing of JFK was the result of a society that historical used violence and murder to eliminate those they disagreed with or hated. He referenced how blacks in America were routinely murdered and the killing of JFK was an extension of how the institutionalization of violence against people in America and in the world had become the norm.

Fish you are a deceitful person on all issues big and small. Whether it be a blatant lie about having your passport stamped at Reagan airport, being a police officer or stirring up racial animus about Malcom X.

I have spent a good part of my life dealing with people like you. You are easy to discredit because your lying is so obviously transparent. Once again you are rendered irrelevant because of your lying. You know nothing about the full context of Malcom X's life, what his philosophy was and how it evolved over time nor his importance to enfranchising people of color in our society. You an outlier and with your comments have revealed yourself to be the racist, ignoramus that you are.

Is O-FISH-L the racist Dave says he is?