Christopher Hitchens - Malcolm X discussion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- "You may be shocked by these words coming from me,But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. ... Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities -- he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth -- the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to."
Malcolm X
He never stopped wanting to learn. Just before his death in 1965, he maintained that one of the things he most regretted in his life was his lack of an academic education. He stated that he would be quite willing to go back to school and continue where he had left off and go on to take a degree. "I would just like to study. I mean ranging study, because I have a wide-open mind. I'm interested in almost any subject you can mention".
When he left the Black Muslims and formed his own organization, one of the roles he performed was that of a teacher. He ran a regular class for young people where he told them "We have got to get over the brainwashing we had ... get out of your mind what the man put in it ... Read everything. You never know where you're going to get an idea. We have to learn how to think ..."
www.malcolmxbio...
"Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today."
What a complete boss Christopher Hitchens was. Erudite, confrontational, fearless. I watch these videos of him staggered at his ability to run rings around his opponents pulling out quotes and reference points on the fly like some kind of literary Floyd Mayweather. The world is a much duller place without him in it.
We have his books, but he is still missed.
Balstrome1 yes true but he'd be bursting blood vessels on the current presidential bid... Thankfully he was a truly prolific broadcaster so there is no end of material out there to watch and listen to.
Jody Thomas He was something to behold.
This is actually my first UA-cam comment in years; but I had to log in and express my admiration for your "literary Flod Mayweather" analogy. As a fan of boxing and Christopher's intellect, I have to say, this is one of the best descriptions of Hitch' conversation style I've ever read.
Beautifully said.
Hitchens is just such an amazing debater. I really haven't come across anyone better. He makes his remarks so clever people don't even realize they're being insulted. It's almost an art.
nonsense...not only are his insults overt...but quite intentional..obviously
John Lennox is better.
@Artemis Fowl Lol, nice.
Christopher Hitchens is the embodiment of an antique 17th century Hero whom plays God with all the other characters with his sheer wit. Best seen in The Country Wife.
Artemis Fowl Nice troll.
"Malcolm X who had everything that white racists could throw at him, refused to let the racists be his teachers." - CH
Malcolm X changed and grew. He was an inspiration to all men who are brothers. We suffered a great loss when he was slain and still feel for him today.
Both Malcolm and Hitch were able to unashamedly re-evaluate their viewpoints when new ideas and experiences came along, whether I agree with them or not. It takes great sand and strength of character to buck against your own tribe and your own former ideas while risking losing it all. That’s courage with a capitol C. R.I.P, big brothers.
excellent comment, thanks
O-K spells “okay.”
Greatest fear is to admit our own fallacy.
That was the great thing about Malcolm X. He was willing to grow and change. He always told the truth as he saw it. Recognizing that the truth is a moving target.
“Respect the man who seeks the truth. Fear the man who finds it,” Voltaire.
Christopher Hitchens aided and abetted me. I left the priesthood of the Roman Catholic kind in 2019, 23 years after first entering the seminary. He gave me the fortitude and the assurance I needed.
May Christopher Hitchens mellifluous voice keep educating free thinkers everywhere until the end of human extinction.
His legacy ensures his immortality. I sorely miss this genuine gentleman, the world is a more miserable place without the Hitch.
i envy christopher hitchens ability t verbally express himself. im late to C.H. but damn i i love him!
Better late than never. It's a pleasure just to hear him speak, isn't it.
Probably the most articulate person I've ever heard string a sentence together.
If you haven’t already you should check out his work on Mother Theresa, you can pick up some handy insults for the wife or mother in law
You will see him in hell. 😄
His brother Peter is also marvellously articulate and intelligent. Check out their mid-90s C-Span appearances 👏👏👏
Mike nice of you to be a prophet. Need to bet on some horse races so how about a partnership?
I too am prophet and believe that hitch will not be in an hallucination. You must be a worshipper of that god who killed himself to impress himself to change the rules it came up with knowing it would have to do it.
hitch's comments at the end are spot on. brilliant
Hitch's point at the very end is beautifully made.
Gave me pause for it was beautifully articulated.
Really was
That last man that stepped up to the microphone should be the president. Those words are more needed now than ever. Brilliant. I wish they had given his name.
AS A HITCHENS FAN AND A MALCOM X FAN THE GUY THAT STOOD UP AT THE END MADE ALOT OF SENSE ABOUT ACTIVISM
The good old days when people could debate highly controversial issues without screaming interruptions.
His remarks at the end start to tackle identity politics. Really wish he were here today to hear his perspective on the present state of identity politics
There is no one better.
Hitch always brings it back to the broader humanistic view, and he doesn’t allow pettiness to survive in his debates.
Who was that guy who got up and said that we should look at the good things people do and try to be that, instead of expecting them to be impossibly perfect... He fucking nailed it.
Was thinking the same thing that guy was on point.
He also completely contradicted Hitchens first major point of this talk (about the supposed glory of "unifiers" instead of those willing to actually criticize and make people uncomfortable). So it would seem these are two mutually exclusive opinions.
Q Bert it would be nice if people would actually do what that guy stood up and said but it's not going to happen because people are going to stab other people in the back mostly Christians are the backstabbers
Q Bert no he didn't, that's dumb as fuck. should we look at just the good in people like Hitler and pol pott
Kai T hi didn't?
The last 3 minutes pretty much summed up Hitchens view on Malcolm X, simple and, in retrospect, correct.
Agree, brilliant.
I usually think hitchens is a bit of an ass, however, he did make some good points here. I know he is very bright. however, thing is I think it takes guts to make a film on Malcolm x, cause he s so controversial. but hitchens ask for too much, I mean, he expects film makers to be completely honest, even if very controversial for his entertainment. what I mean is great people have flaws. sometimes being honest about all of them is not the point of making a film about them...
@alexander usyk haha..i don t know what u mean, but it s funny...actually, i think hitchens is usually an asshole.ie. I don t like him...usually.
Definitely a bit of a lunatic, but at the end of the day he fought for the right cause
@@chadwoods2364 how was he a lunatic?
The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a fascinating book. Read it if you haven't.
Alan Shearer's isn't. Don't read it if you haven't.
@@Pwwh0711 y not
It’s a good book worth the read
@@Pwwh0711 you don't know what you're talking about stronzetto
You need to read the biography by Manning Marable which is the best so far
After 15:50, I started to tear my hair out. Peter Bailey blocked Hitchens' question, I suspect, because he has a problem with language comprehension as a result of his political biases. Hitchens dwarfed everyone on that panel with his erudition, intelligence, articulateness, and rationality. The world is a poorer place without him.
Or he was tired of the verbose narcissist hogging all the time.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 You realise this video is cut to highlight Hitchens' contributions right? The title makes that clear.
Christopher Hitchens: "J Edgar Hoover in a dress will happen in a movie"...it took a while but Leonard DiCaprio, take a bow
***** idk i don't think they necessarily wanted to paint as a villain, but he certainly didn't come across as a hero either
@Comrade Kong Everyone's hero is someone else's villain. And everyone's villain is someone else's hero.
Hard to paint him a hero even if you had Leonardo Davinci
tntramzy12 I see what you did there
Are you a male chauvinist? the woman on the panel said it first...
I miss you Hitch
That end bit of soliloquy is Hitchens gold.
What an absolute shame this articulate and ultra intelligent man has left this world.
You can still blow Sam Harris, and say things like "we need more philosophers like this in our world...."
@@thomasanderson6426 Why are you so mad about other people blowing Sam Harris?
We got a live one!
@@thomasanderson6426 K Thomas.
Beautiful point by Hitch in the end! I think we need to really respect the position posed by the brother that spoke toward the end. He was right in saying that we fucking have to come together at some point! But he is trying to forget, where Mr. Bailey thinks we deserved to be respected for the atrocities we suffered; but that goes for Native Americans, the Chinese, the Japanese, Haitians, Muslims, presently, and so many others! Peter Bailey had quite the point in saying that white people should have done more in their own homes and communities! Don't just show up to the West Side with a pan of brownies and think you're a fucking activist!
Wow, Hitchen’s final point was superbly made.
"Your losing respect for me doesn't cause me a lot of problems" Great line! 9:20
Or, a complete jerk
Swerved the question
That was the worst line of all. He just revealed the small size of his shoes. Then, after going nuts over being called out, he starts shouting like a complete fool.
He’s a man who takes race too seriously in an age where that should be going away
It was a defense mechanism because he knows he’s being called out on his dog whistle anti semitism.
I’m very glad to see Peter Baily get nailed for his earlier statement “there are things about Jews we don’t know”. He tries to deflect it by saying “No, you don’t understand, I ADMIRE their (Jews) ability to defend themselves!”. That has nothing to do with his earlier statement “there are things about Jews we don’t know”, which he refused to address.
John Richardson Baily wormed his way into discredit.
His statement "There are things about Jews we don't know."
The question: "What are these things?/ What do you mean by that?"
Since I obviously missed the context: does it appear just a little odd to me, that P.B. should name those things? What should he have said? "I mean those things we don't know?" or were the unspoken/forbidden issues/facts/events one might know? To me it looked like an 'ad hominem'-argument that stung very well, sadly to say so from my uninformed superficial point of view.
John Richardson There may be more to the man than we see here, but in rhetoric Baily is shown to be as much a liar as a coward.
John Richardson If you watch and listen again the lady on the panel clarifies the question to PB at 11:11 to 11:18. He said that there are things that you could not portray in a film about Jewish people - that is not the same as saying there are things that we do not know. What I believe P.B was implying is that you could not get away with portraying Jews in a negative light without at least suffering a backlash from the Jewish community primarily and then from those who are conditioned to feel the need to leap to their defence always, either because of the holocaust or because they mistakenly believe that the god of abraham is real and that he hold jews in higher regard than any other race.
John Richardson Yeah, that was hilarious. Utter twat
The man who speaks at 17:20 on is fantastic.
+Tenor Sax B Talking about all of us coming together is an American thing? What is funny about that? And why is the notion of uniting to foster change in the U.S. a foolish one?
The first two minutes of the clip Hitchens speaks of how a supporter of Palestinian rights speaks positively of confrontation and polarization. Confrontation is great. But this country is far too polarized, to the point where dialogues about important issues are constantly clouded by factionalism and false outrage, and where many groups which do have similar end goals are completely unable to unify and bring about change in this country, which is in dire need of it, as the gentleman at 17:20 says.
I don't believe what he was saying was white noise. You could be pessimistic and say it felt like a string of platitudes, but unfortunately, his words have become platitudes because they have been said over and over, without actually coming true, especially since the film came out in 1992, we have become increasingly polarized since then, on a national scale, which has certainly not helped matters in the US.
No he wasn't: first he said Malcolm X & Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn't be he wasting their discussing a movie, and that they would somewhere else doing protesting. But when the moderator said "we're sorry to be here", then "no that's cool."
Christopher Hitchens: always for the truth. His integrity was real.
+Derl30 Hitch mentions Juan Williams. Is that him?
His position is in direct opposition to Hitchens though. Hitchens had already just condemned this widely accepted notion that unity is automatically good and polarization bad. His point about Malcolm X is that the division and conflict resulting from his impact on culture is a desirable thing and a catalyst for consideration, argument, and change. Nothing changes when everyone is in agreement. It's easy to advocate universal unity. It's also ineffectual. So the man is simultaneously advocating for activism and suggesting there's no actual problem to overcome.
That speech at the end, specifically @18:52 is so relevant to today's issues it pains me. It does feel like we have taken a step backwards.
The problem with making a Hollywood film about a highly complex and controversial like Malcolm X is that Hollywood cannot handle complexity and abhors controversy. The autobiography should be read by all of us but a movie cannot possibly do justice to a figure as complex and controversial as Malcolm X.
Ken Hudson I think he had integrity but it takes more than integrity to make a man “great”. Hitler had integrity, too. He said what he meant and meant what he said. So what? Malcolm X spouted racist hatred until after he was kicked out of NOI. He advocated racial segregation. He opposed the black civil rights movement and racial integration. He advocated black nationalism, a ridiculous notion for black Americans with no land of their own and no prospect of ever having an independent country of their own. He talked a tough game but he did so from the relative safety of Harlem. He never once confronted the police dogs and the racist southern sheriffs. He made no contribution at all to the lives of black Americans. He gave eloquent expression to the rage and resentment of Black Americans but that’s all. In the final analysis, he accomplished nothing. King, on the other hand, was a truly great man. He had enormous courage and integrity, but in addition , he fought for social justice for all the poor and oppressed and against war and capitalism. He was much more than just a civil rights leader. He led the black civil rights movement that abolished Jim Crow laws and legal racial discrimination and segregation. He paved the way for the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act Of 1965. But then he went on to be the most important opponent of the American invasion of Vietnam and he was trying to organize poor and working class Americans to fight for economic justice when Johnson had him assassinated. Unlike Malcolm, King preached against racism and hatred and violence. He was by far the greater man.
Ken Hudson I see nothing positive at all in calling white people “devils” or in advocating racial segregation and separation. I see nothing positive in black nationalism at all. The NOI preached a false gospel of racism. As long as Malcolm preached for the NOI, he did not make any positive contribution to the world at all. In the last year of his life, he seems to have shed the racism of the NOI. He was perhaps moving toward greater political engagement and away from the religious cult mentality of the NOI. Perhaps he would have made common cause with Dr. King if he had lived. About that, we can only speculate. Would he finally abandon the absurd notion of black nationalism and reconcile himself to the fact that as a small, impoverished minority in the USA, black Americans would have to make common cause with White Americans if they were ever to achieve a better life for themselves and their posterity? I don’t know. All I know is that hatred and rage and racist rhetoric only beget more of the same. I don’t regard the goals espoused by King and Malcolm as compatible at all, I think their goals were diametrically opposed, at least as long as Malcolm was preaching for NOI. That’s why Malcolm and NOI poured scorn on King for many years. Integration is not compatible with segregation; nonviolent civil disobedience is not compatible with militant black nationalism. King was about justice, not love. He was no naive flower child. He was a fighter for social justice. That’s why he was assassinated by the state. He was not the gentle Santa Claus figure that the US has portrayed him as since they killed him. King was a fighter, not a mere dreamer. Most people these days really don’t know how strong and vehement King was in opposing the war machine and capitalism. He posed a danger to the power structure in a way that Malcolm never did. Malcolm was a spokesman but he was not the leader of a mass movement, he could not mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to descend on Washington to demand social justice. Black nationalism and pan-Africanism was a dead end. Racism divides the oppressed whites against the oppressed blacks and thus enables the Wall Street power elite to rule. Only when the poor and working class people reject racism and unite against their common oppression will they ever succeed in creating a more just society. King understood this basic fact. I’m not sure Malcolm ever did.
Ken Hudson The NOI abstained from political activity. It was a cult of personality based on racism and black separatist nationalism. It spewed hatred against a devil called The White Man whom it blamed for all the ills of the world. There’s nothing positive to be said for NOI at all except that it may have provided moral rehabilitation for Blacks who had fallen into a life of crime and depravity. It provided a sense of discipline to certain people who sorely needed it. It’s no accident that it’s recruits were often convicted felons like Malcolm. But aside from that, it had nothing positive to offer blacks and did not improve their lives at all. Preaching independence and self sufficiency to people who utterly lack the means to achieve independence and self sufficiency is not helpful. Preaching nationalism to people who have no chance of ever having a nation state of their own is to promote an illusion. For better or worse, black Americans have no choice but to live in a society dominated by the white majority culture unless they want to literally go back to Africa to live. As long as they live in the USA, they have got to somehow learn to live in a predominantly white culture. That’s just reality. Otherwise, they would have to live in hermetically sealed religious cults, like the Hasidic Jews or the Amish. I don’t think most black Americans would like that. Malcolm was an exponent of a repulsive racist ideology for most of his career. Only in the last year of his life did he start to talk a bit of sense. Go listen to his speech about “the ballot or the bullet”. Do you seriously think any black man who picks up a gun isn’t going to be shot dead by the police in a heartbeat?! Huey Newton tried it and nearly got killed. The Black Panthers tried to follow Malcolm’s black nationalism and militant self defense and they were crushed and their leadership jailed by the federal government practically overnight. Venting about The White Man is never going to help black people live better lives. Ignorance never helped anyone and racism is ignorance on stilts.
Ken Hudson Name one thing that Malcolm X accomplished. You accuse me of harping on NOI but Malcolm was a preacher for NOI until the last year of his life! To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. With NOI, he preached racist hate and black nationalism. That’s his primary legacy! Did that accomplish anything for black people? No. He played no part in the historic black civil rights struggle at all. In fact, he actively attacked King and the others who were risking their lives to achieve basic civil rights. He struck a virile pose, he assumed a militant attitude, and he castigated King for his adherence to non-violent civil disobedience. He called King and his followers “Uncle Toms”. His militant pose appealed primarily to young black men who were eager to prove their manhood. But did his militant speeches actually accomplish anything positive? No! After he was kicked out of NOI and after he came back from Mecca, he started to free himself from the racist ideology of the NOI. He became less obnoxious. But he still advocated black nationalism, a hopeless ideology if ever there was one. He would still not permit whites to join the OAAU. He still saw the world in terms of black and white. His influence was basically on Black militants like Stokely Carmichael and H Rap Brown and Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, young Black Men who rebelled against King’s leadership and rejected nonviolence in favor of militance. When King was murdered, it marked the end of the black civil rights movement. The cities burned and black militants cheered on the rioters. Did they accomplish anything worthwhile? No. Malcolm’s rhetoric made young black men feel strong and virile, but ultimately black nationalists and black militants found themselves in a dead end. Malcolm gave eloquent expression to black resentment and he advocated black independence. But to my knowledge, he never attacked the US war machine or capitalist exploitation. Has he lived longer, he might have accomplished something worthwhile. He might have joined forces with King to fight against imperialism, war and poverty. But as it is, his legacy does not really amount to much. He was a symbol of black pride and black power and black nationalism.
Ken Hudson Thank you, I have enjoyed engaging in a serious discussion with you about Malcolm and King, a discussion that I hope others might read and enjoy and perhaps find stimulating. I wish you well. Cheers and Happy New Year!
I miss the Hitch.
😔
Oh, how innocent we once were.
How simple the days.
No cares in the world save a handfull of creationist school districts and warning labels on NWA albums.
Pat Robertson didn't like the gays,
Ken Hamm didn't like the fossils,
Christopher was alive,
And we were right about everything...
How distant it all seems now.... 😔 😢
@Comrade Kong Chrissy Hitchens = atheist jesus
@Comrade Kong You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Hitch would NOT have supported Trump. Trump is the human embodiment of everything Hitch hated. Listen to Sam Harris's answer to the question of who would Hitch have voted for in 2016, as someone who knew Hitch very well he stated it would have been a holding of the nose vote for Clinton. And as for the idea that Hitch would be for nuclear bombardment of the middle east and effectively starting WW3, I mean come on don't be silly.
You will see him in hell soon.
@Mike Rodgers I don’t know how you could see someone in a place that does not exist.
The elderly man in the grey suit was a legend.
The black guy? How could you understand his ebonical bullshit?
That Peter Bailey fellow sounds like he does not know what the words flying out of his mouth actually mean.
Cries bigotry then acts like a bigot. Hypocracy at its finest.
He’s the exemplification of an offensive stereotype.
Well they were certainly right about seeing J Edgar Hoover in a black dress in film. We saw DiCaprio strutting jus stuff.
+ZP Pierce Haha exactly my thoughts.
That was an obvious take then.
Yet another reminder that Hitch was a polemical genius. He could ad-lib entire spoken paragraphs that perfectly summed up his case, pre-empted his critics and sounded more lyrical than anything an army of lesser writers could come up with in a week. And they stand the test of time.
He was a gifted writer and eloquent speaker who had a deep and dark immoral core. His legacy will not be his self-serving wit and laughably false veneer of dissent he liked to project, but it would that of a man that pimped and cheerleadered for imperialist wars. As Norman Finkelstein had beautifully put after his death, "..the air smelled cleaner," I too see him more poisonous than right wing jingoists, who don't pretend to care about the oppressed.
Saqib Sarker Oh, hardly. He was wrong about Iraq, where he hoped that removing a genocidal maniac would hasten a flourishing of human freedom there. His mistake there was consistent with a lifetime of inveighing against totalitarianism and fascism. Your hysterical assertion that he had a “deep and dark immoral core” is refuted by everyone who knew and loved him, but it does reveal that you take his attacks against religion personally. It’s okay. A lot of silly people misunderstand what morality is and hide behind aggressively oppressive religious beliefs as a substitute.
@@AngusRockford you are extremely naive or saying whatever it takes to defend Hitchens if you think it was a "mistake." In fact framing it as a right decision vs mistake means you don't understand the issue. There's no "mistake" in supporting pre-emptive war, a flagrant violation of international law. Hitchens was many things, but he was not stupid. He knew perfectly well how inconsistent you have to be to cheerleader a war and pretend to be serious about international laws. Why not attack Israel then, which periodically massacre an unarmed population and continuing a brutal occupation? Why not attack China, where hundreds of thousands are in concentration camps? Does this make any fucking sense?
Saqib Sarker I’m not trying to defend Hitchens on his Iraq stance, but it seems that your position that he’s a moral monster because he didn’t advocate attacking the countries that *you* think should be attacked is a little misguided. Since a U.S. attack on either Israel or China would never have been on the table during the last half century, I’m not surprised if he never bothered taking a position on that, although he often harshly criticized the leadership of both of those nations and many more, including his own.
By “not on the table,” I mean, of course, entirely ruled out by political and military reality. But it’s fun to fantasize, I guess.
I have read the Malcom's autobiography twice and I have only seen the movie once. I have to say that I would read the book a third time before watching the movie again. This Bailey fellow sure did make a buffoon of himself. Quite embarrassing.
Why do people continue to polarize in groups? "I'm black; I as a black man; we blacks, etc." That kind of talk polarizes people and this black man has little intellect and no logic; Mr. Hitchens laid that out plainly.
The reason black people don’t do as good as they could as Americans is not only white exclusion but self imposed tribalism and separation.
Fascinating debate!!!👍🏾well worth a listen!!!!
From 9:00 - 12:30 that guy was a deer in headlights.
I am not always a fan of Christopher Hitchens but here he is spot on. Peter Bailey looks like such a lightweight next to Hitchens. Peter Bailey is like those sycophants Charlie Rose has on at Oscar time who just blab on and on and kiss up to industy heavyweights like Spike Lee.
Every time I see something of Christopher Hitchens I realise what an intelligent man he was.
I'm reading his book 'God is not great' for a second time now and I will álways keep it on my desk, within reache.
As he wrote religion is and will remain being póisonous
I don't need religion to be anti-racist. I miss Hitchens.
after the question at 9:00 ... that's the most hilarious misunderstanding clusterfuck I've ever seen
Peter, WTF you talking about dude? Hitch was a intellectual genius 👏🏾👏🏾
11:51 Peter Bailey simply isn't that bright. He can't even follow his own words, let alone someone else's question. He does this for the entirety of this presentation.
15:52 Baily AGAIN demonstrates that he in fact does not pay attention to anyone. He asserts something that Hitchens just spent 2 minutes talking about!
Unfortunately I've noticed that the black community tends to prop up preacher types whoa re loud and sound like Martin Luther King, but as we can see when hes challenged on a nuanced point there really isn't anything deeper there.
He's not an intellectual he's a butt hurt bigot who thinks he's owed something because he's black. Unfortunately the
Black community at large has been brainwashed by Christianity and has been indoctrinated into an ideology based on lies. He's high on his own self image.
L
Bailey is completely out of his depth intellectually . He's a fraud who wouldn't welcome racial resolution as it would leave him completely marginalized and insignificant as he should be.
Peter Bailey's deflection, my god.
At first, I thought it was deflection. A year later, I don't think it was deflection. The Jew guy and Feminist were begging the question that Peter never asked. Anti-Semitist baiting. He deflected and put a spotlight on the Baiting. Didn't deserve more. He could have "deflected" better.
I don't think he's antisemitic, but I enjoyed seeing him squirm when his own game is being turned on him. He was trying his hardest not to be cornered as hating Jews much like like white people try their hardest not to appear as racist when he turns the screws on them.
It's not a deflection. Listen again.
@@paulpeartsmith Yes it is...he made the statement(that had a hint of bigotry) and he tried to deflect it because he knows it was racist and hes pretending that he didnt understood the question about a claim that he did
The dude just asked why he think that way and he didnt answer him
JustMe please recite to me the racist part.
Delicious Hitch-Slap there at the end..
It's really interesting because I had some of the same criticisms of the film when it first came out. I was in graduate school and had read Malcolm's autobiography and was wondering why Spike spent soooo much time showing "Detroit Red" and not the post-Mecca Malcolm? Oh, and that Bailey guy is an idiot!
I agree. The film could have explored his experiences and relationships during his "last phase".
I read the book, but I don't think I've even seen the movie.
I've always thought Spike Lee was way over rated. I've always wondered why people thought "Do the Right Thing" was a great movie. For one thing, no one in real life is going to start a protest over a pizzeria having pictures of Italians up.
charlesvan13 That's funny because when I first saw ¨Do the Right Thing¨, I was a huge Spike Lee's fan, but I said the same thing to my friends. At the time, I was a lone voice amongst my friends because I just didn't understand why they simply didn't just go to another place to eat. But, that would ruin the whole plot of the movie ;)
charlesvan13 "DTRT" is conceptually incoherent. Some laud this as novelistic. Nonsense.
Amazing closing statement, and I must say, was Hitchens exercising a glimmering of Orwell's literary world.
That's exactly what I was going to say. Thank you.
I’m low-key post mortem enchanted by Christopher Hitchens.
What an amazing mind. I really miss this guy.
17:23 I love when an audience member crushes it.
I really liked Christopher's Hitchens closing statement!
Truly Loved Dearly Missed 🇩🇪
"I don't understand the question"?!?!?!
Hitch kinda carried the cross on after Orwell. Yes...you gotta be high to write that...
Whoa. Well this panel certainly took an unexpected turn. Wowsers.
I had forgot that Hitch wasn't alive. His ideas are that relevant.
This is amazing, sets the stage for things now
The civility and respect, from ALL sides of the members here, is on an order of magnitude above what is happening now. We need to find what has been LOST since this was made.
Critical thinking is what's missing. Listening also seems lost.
Being able to listen.
Hitchen is as always superbly eloquent.
What makes Christopher Hitchens so important and very probably one of the few philosophers of his time who will be remembered is his insanely clear mind and ability to retain knowledge and recognize the bullshit.
IF YOU PUT RANDOM AMERICANS WHITES UP AGAINST AMERICAN BLACKS IN ALL SUBJECT WHICH RACE DO THINK WOULD WIN
Yup I thoroughly agree.
By what sense you've termed him as a philosopher?
@@ashwanimalhotra493 Lol here comes a philosophy gatekeeper
"Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today."
Need to keep reminding myself of this when I rage at people on my online video games
The tone difference between Hitchens and Bailey gives us a hint of who actually knows what's talking about.
Hitch intellectually blows away everyone else on that panel
Damn, respect to that guy who stood up and spoke.
Hitchens mentions briefly J Edgar Hoover's tapes of MLK in a motel. Any idea what he is referring to there? From Bailey's reaction he seems to agree that the tapes would cast MLK in a bad light. I'm curious if those tapes have ever been published.
I believe they're sex tapes. MLK was a serial womaniser
I don't think a man who was offered "anything he want's" by the FBI to be their informant and who died broke would torch his own house and blame someone else
its amazing watching a young hitchens talk in something like this when you see the shift in his perceptive so much later on. it makes me wonder how much he regretted saying.
Is that guy wearing a sweatshirt under a blazer? Bold as hell!
We need a second coming of Hitch more than ever.
Well, he’s written the infallible book and you’re asking for a second coming. Irony is dead.
@@bustedfender irony, is of course why I used that turn of phrase.
@chocobonita I think Alex is more a Sam Harris than a Hitch. Hitch was always more about retoric than logic.
what a beautiful soul
I'm sure Peter Bailey thought it was a clever statement to say Malcolm X a not a great man but a great black man. However this minimizes Malcolm X as a man. He's unwittingly saying Malcolm X is a big fish in a small pond rather than being a killer whale in the worlds oceans.
Malcolm was a killer whale not a large mouth bass.
Yes, I thought the same.
19:50- 22:07...Another great Hitch moment...he continues to educate the world long after his passing. He points out Malcolm X's unsuccessful attempt to grow the cult of Islam, and correctly points out the danger of the cult of Christianity. He also provides insight on what Malcolm X "meant" to him. (some of it quite positive).
I sure miss Christopher Hitchens!
where is the rest of this debate? this was awesome... Christopher was amazing as always......peter just embarrassed himself
www.c-span.org/video/?38333-1/malcolm-x-movie-cinema-history
PETER HITCHENS AND JORDAN PETERSON DESTROYS M.E. DYSON AND PETER BAILY
@@dektran4843 Hitch would have destroyed 'Jesus smuggler' Peterson in no time. And no way would they be on the same team on any topic. Hitchens could be brutally honest and with a flair for language. Peterson is just brutal - though also pompous and long-winded but not very honest.
@@luckydave328 they would definitely be on the same side on alot of issues. Stephen Fry has been on the side of either of them for example
@@davemccullagh4297 I remember Stephen Fry at the Munk Debates being on the same team as Peterson on the subject of political correctness . Fry was very uncomfortable to find himself next to Peterson and actually distanced himself from him in several instances and said right at the beginning that he had little in common with him on most issues ! After all we can all agree on something. You are right that Hitch would have also sided with Peterson on free speech and political correctness, so I concede that. I perhaps shouldn't have said 'any issue'. However he would have opposed all of Peterson's religious, Jungian archetype argument and more importantly would have pointed out every bit of dishonest and fallacious trickery that Peterson regularly gets away with. What I see whenever Peterson debates ...for instance with Sam Harris or Matt Dillahunty is that he is not really talking to them but rather to his audience of followers who cheer and clap whenever they think he has scored a point over the other, regardless of whether or not it was actually a legitimate response. They are like sports fans at a tournament. They are of course his bread and butter , so he mustn't dissapoint. For the most part it is unlikely that many of them understand what he is actually saying. He doesn't even attempt clarity but on the contrary prefers to obfuscate by quoting from obscure texts and using lofty and convoluted lines of argument that are difficult to follow. He redefines the common understanding of important words like 'truth' for example. But he will pretend to be pondering carefully his next well-rehearsed line and then deliver it in a triumphant manner with a simplified punch line that his audience can easily understand, in a tone of indignation that they relate to emotionally. It's a good trick. Peterson almost never concedes any point as he is not debating to help uncover any new way of thinking or understanding but rather to win or to appear to have won. He regularly uses straw manning, red herrings and smoke screens, no true scotsman, appeal to authority and just about every other fallacious trick in the book. To my mind he is a charlatan. I now realise though that he is a self-deluded charlatan and that his drug addiction probably had something to do with that. He is a clever and intelligent person and a very well read academician. I hope he will take time to rethink his previous stance and return with greater humility and deeper sincerity and intellectual honesty. He has managed to shine a light on issues that were buried and to speak out for many unaddressed injustices. He has sparked a lot of useful debate and made a great contribution by challenging much of the established modern thinking. He will be welcomed back when he has made a full recovery. Right now though he should take time out and keep away from the limelight he has also been addicted to.
Why doesn't he state the obvious? There is no way that a film could be made about the ethnic cleansing that went on as soon as the UN gave statehood to Israel. That holocaust can barely be mentioned without shouts of antisemitism ringing out to suppress it.
Malcolm would've agreed far more with Hitchens than anyone else. The similarities of projecting a positive human plight far outweigh any shared physical properties.
they'd have clashed swords on islam, although it wouldn't have been a lengthy battle.
I hate how this was edited to bring out Hitchens. I do not believe for a second that his final comments were the only final comments made. Good job keeping this video alive, but we are all worse for what was cut out of it. Yes Hitchens genius shone through in his comments here...but still: it's useful to understand his environment to gauge his position within it.
The full video is available in on youtube.
[citation needed]
They were right about Hoover being shown in film in a dress. Apparently he was accidentally recorded by the mafia. Many mob guys have spoken about it and have a uniform answer. The place, the year, & talk of tape of he and his BF in a bathroom stall at a mob related bar. I don’t think he was aware it was a mob owned establishment.
"Not as a great man, as a great black man"
What does he mean by this?
I took it as the idea being that being a great man puts you on some sort of pedestal for the totality of your actions, your morals etc. Instead, we should laud people such as MLK and Malcolm X not because they were flawless human beings, but because they have achieved important things for black people. Thus, we should honor them specifically for those actions without constructing a myth about their humanity.
Well, "J. Edgar" wasn't a great movie, DiCaprio did a pretty good job. And yes, he did appear in a dress in the movie XD.
And the movie outright showed him as gay. He almost certainly was.
Darran Kern The movie outright showed Hoover preferred the company of men to women, and had convoluted mother issues. I don't think it showed he was definitely gay, to the credit of the screenwriter. It's possible he was asexual most of his life.
The cross-dressing myth is based almost entirely on the testimony of a prostitute who was at a sex party Hoover allegedly attended. I dunno about that...
I wish I was better read so I could follow Chris better.
Hitch the wordsmith! 😂 👍 ☘
THEY HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT THEY HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND THATS UNREALISTIC TO ASK THAT FROM ANYBODY
Did he say..Juan Williams at 22.08?!..and is that Mr Larry Elder on the end?
Hitchens is spellbinding as per..
We did see Hoover in a dress too. They got that right.
Peter Bailey is basically saying he is sad and resentful that Jews are better at protecting and advocating their status as victims than blacks are.
Don't @ me with accusations of racism. It is simply my interpretation of his assertion, which is why he refused to clarify his statement when challenged.
So often that when Hitch speaks, I feel like the time slows down...
The world needs Hitch now more than ev..
I actually think there is a charitable way to interpret Bailey's remarks in a way that doesn't impute anti-sem. attitudes to him. I think that he was trying to make a small point that a filmmaker creating a biopic on a historically prominent Jewish figure (Ben-Gurion, say) that included a little known, but unflattering piece of biographical info would be difficult given the political power of the Jewish community whenever this video aired. That, it seems, would be a point that might have very well been true at the time (then again, it might not). Instead, I think the accusation surprised the speaker and given that he forgot that particular ill-articulated remark in the midst of his others, caused the "bumbling" that we see here. It got worse because he became angry that he was fumbling and it just was not a good look. Anyways, I don't think that this interpretation is entirely unreasonable given the context and what was said but, I wish, there would've been a better resolution to this.
Well said 3 years ago, but well said.
I also have a more charitable understanding of his bafflement. His statement "what we don't know about Jews in America" didn't imply, as you say, that he was thinking of something specific. He could only imagine that they do "bad things" like any other "collective". However it was understood as "I know bad things Jews have done but cannot be told", so he was challenged to say something specific, but there were no specific crimes he knew of, just a general knowledge of the imperfection of all human groups. The statement could be understood in two ways, and unfortunately it was!
The Hicth use of language and prose is more than remarkable and no one in this panel comes close, not even by a million Kilometres. His command of language is something unique, one in a million years.
Something which occurs once in a million years isn't unique, it is merely rare. ;-)
Something which occurs once in a million years isn't unique, it is merely rare (on a human timescale at least). ;-) However, whilst I agree with you that CH was erudite and articulate and could think on his feet, those attributes are by no means rare. I work amongst people of similar intellect and skills, but you will have to just take my word for that. However, off the top of my head,, a contemporaneous example of a well known individual with very similar rhetorical skills is Jordan Peterson.
17:22 does anyone know who this gentleman is?
Peter plays dumb and gets called out on it, but fails to sound intelligent, hmm, quite common with race movers.
It would be good to listen to the entire thing not clips and cuts. Post the entire thing sir.
Any chance the whole debate will be uploaded anytime soon?
I'm pretty sure I saw the whole thing elsewhere. Search again
They made the "J. Edgar" Hoover movie.
And it was a tad better than Hitchens feared. I'd like to know his take on it.
I understand how the confusion in the middle happened. About Peter's statement of not being able to portray Jewish people in certain ways in the media without being rightfully called out(though the exact previous comment is not in this video, this is similar to how the clarifying question was asked) being construed as implying that there were things that Jewish people may be trying to hide, that other people are not allowed to criticize.
However, it should have become clear quite immediately that his statement was different from what they heard, once he revisited it, and that they were running him through a wringer for no reason.
While I did check the comments before making my statement above to see if a discussion was already going on at the top of what was generated, I see now that there were many comments beyond what I had yet discovered, probably the majority single theme, in fact, dealing with Peter Bailey "sounding like a fool," "being racist then denying it," "deflecting when confronted about what he said," that I had not scrolled down to. So, in the interest of clarification of what was actually going on and integrity of my statement above, I found the entire discussion so that I could quote what was said. It won't make sense on its own so I will present his entire statement and because it relates, part of what Juan Williams replied with directly after. Keep in mind that Juan had been putting words into Peter's mouth through the entire discussion which was quite uncomfortable because I think that overall they agreed on what Peter was trying to say and Juan was hearing broad and sweeping statements that he wanted to combat and even referenced Peter's opinions about things that hadn't even come up. I'm not really sure what the beef was about. Juan's statement preceding this was about people being disappointed that the movie wasn't shorter or more vitriolic. He didn't make it clear whether meeting Peter's goal of portraying Malcolm X in a truer light was what he was criticizing but he made it clear that designing the movie to say one thing or another would invite exaggeration and seemed to put on Peter's shoulders that what he was advocating for was such exaggeration even though it seemed to me that the emphasis that Peter was looking for was about Malcolm's intent that was cut short[I.E. his goals when he was assassinated] and the actual answers that the public didn't really get. Peter was saying that there were reasons other than how much money the production studio gave to Spike Lee that controlled what he could put in the movie.
Peter: "You see... we probably could never agree, Juan because I think that art is propaganda. I think that art is propaganda. When I do to see a movie as a child and I saw those Tarzan movies, and I'm sitting there cheering Tarzan and Cheetah as they wipe out a whole group of African warriors. Y'know, see, to some people that's art. To me that was propaganda. Y'know, and I know that there're people making decisions about that and those decisions are made today about what is -- There are certain things about Jewish people in this country you're not gunna put in a movie, I don't care how artistic you are, because of the power they have to stop it. Y'know, and other groups; and so, I don't get upset by artists not being able to do everything they want because no artist can do everything that he or she wants in this society. And we have less boundaries than anyone else."
[There's a little bit in between that's kind of off the wall and doesn't land for me as being relevant, but less than six seconds worth.]
Juan: "What you said was. You said something's going on with Jewish Americans, you got so much Jewish... I want to know what it is that we don't see about Jewish Americans."
There's some more that I don't see as necessarily part of the discussion even though it loosely touches the topics, it comes out of nowhere as far as I can see.
It really seems like it may be taken that Peter thought that there were literal realistic things 'about Jewish people' that they would want to keep out of the media... Except for the entire context is that the roles of Black people in art have been freely changed to represent things such as literal savages, even to the point that he took the side of the protagonist character when he watched some of them as a child... at least a little.
Peter's overall statement was intended to be that he was proud that Spike Lee made a piece that he wasn't completely disappointed in but that it still wasn't the movie he would want to see regarding the man he knew in real life, Malcolm X. It's hard to follow what's going on, really, because Juan seemed to be attacking Peter about wanting it to be truer and also about wanting it to say something that was manufactured at the same time. Every time peter said ANYthing, Juan jumped on him about both of these points at the same time without making it clear where he himself actually stood or what he was trying to get Peter to concede. However, I think it's safe to say that Juan's response was what informed people's interpretation of that earlier statement.
I think that these confuddled arguments are a large part of why it was cut[out of this UA-cam video], though I don't understand why just that part questioning the most confusing part was left in. Juan seems to think that Peter intends films to try to aspire to be propaganda even though he was attacking him before 'all art is propaganda' even came up. Al Freeman, who played Elijah Muhammad in the movie, stated to the second question of the evening that he thinks Spike Lee wanted to portray the Auto-Biography, and nothing else, in the film. So I think this is a large part of why I appreciate Juan pushing for it to be seen as art more than wishing for it to be changed, however I don't understand why he went for Peter so viciously. Peter was, if I recall, the first one to 'disagree' with something Juan said, so it may have just been an ego reaction.
It seemed to me that Peter was trying to have a separate conversation than leaving the piece as a portrayal of the autobiography, probably because it would be very easy to accept that as an accomplished feat. However, Hitchens does make a good point that portraying some things that we couldn't have known as factual simply because they were what Malcolm X either supposed or claimed may be a disservice that keeping to the book should have tried to avoid.
I mean, I feel like I could analyze the situation a little more closely and cut out a lot of my own assumption from above, replacing it with clearer conclusions, but I think there is enough here that we can follow the discussion enough to at least decide on our own where all of this confusion lies. Even in the event that I am hugely mistaken. I don't think that either party meant ill and that some points on both sides actually did refute the other person quite well, there was just too much noise in between. Also, I am fine with this being more of a stream of thought comment rather than an essay format researched and edited oratory. Last note, Juan mentioned that he consulted Peter on a previous project(for GQ if that will help you catch it easier), so at the very least they are familiar with communicating with each other. Which most certainly leads to some communication here that is lost on everyone else.
The event is called "Malcolm X Forum Discussion (1993)"
Such nostalgia! Back in the days before people would immediately shout the word “ racist,” to destroy someone like Christophers salient points. However inconvenient they may be.
To all the people whose bowels are in an uproar over Peter Bailey's supposed antisemitism: watch the entire version of this poorly contextualized edit, it's on C-Span.
Peter _is_ dumb and wrong for many of the things he says and how he says them, but he's not wrong because he was misconstrued to be making a thinly veiled suggestion about a Jewish conspiracy. He's wrong for valuing group identity above individuality, and believing that all art should be seen as propaganda or is propaganda.
I found it weird that for the majority of the conversation Peter was advocating that there should be a movie made about what Malcolm X was trying to accomplish before he got assassinated but he couldn't seem to grasp that even the 'strictly according to the autobiography' portrayal of the movie even had Malcolm advocating that he was wrong in pushing away other perspectives.
18:49 I watched all of this debate, was great. I have to say though that the gentleman at said time, is on point.....even today in 2019.