logo
Ibram X. Kendi is ready to introduce kids to Malcolm X: 'Racism is worse in times of tragedy'

Ibram X. Kendi is ready to introduce kids to Malcolm X: 'Racism is worse in times of tragedy'

Yahoo13-05-2025
At a time when the federal government is conducting a radical erasure of Black history in the name of fighting diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and school libraries are banning books about race, Ibram X. Kendi is ready to introduce kids to Malcolm X.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. Kendi, whose new book 'Malcolm Lives!' is subtitled 'The Official Biography of Malcolm X for Young Readers,' has made it his mission to promote antiracism. His previous books include 'How to Be an Antiracist' (2019) and 'Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America' (2016), which won the National Book Award for Nonfiction. As an academic — most recently at Boston University and soon to be at Howard University — and as a writer, he lives to spotlight the very history that the current administration would like to bury, especially where it potentially influences young minds.
He is well aware of the timing of his new book. In fact, he savors it.
'When people are trying to attack history, trying to kill our awareness of history, those are the moments we should be creating it,' he said in a recent interview. 'Those are the moments in which we should be making it even more legible for people, so that they can understand why other people are actually trying to prevent us from having an awareness of history.'
And in Malcolm X, the complex street hustler turned Black nationalist firebrand worshipped by everyone from Stokely Carmichael to Clarence Thomas, Kendi believes he has the perfect subject for the moment.
'Malcolm's life and story, and the ideas that he personally wrestled with, are ideas that we're wrestling with now,' he said. 'I think he can help adults and young people to better understand what's going on.'
Kendi — the 'X' stands for his middle name, Xolani, a Xhosa and Zulu word for peace — pulls no punches in making such connections. This is how he analyzes the Lansing, Mich., fire department's indifference after a white mob set fire to Malcolm's family home in 1929: 'Racism is worse in times of tragedy. If you are Black, the agencies designed to help you will ignore you or hurt you. Ask Black residents of New Orleans who survived Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Ask houseless Black people near you. Ask Black people who called the police when their loved one was having a mental health crisis — and the police came and killed them.'
Read more: What would Malcolm X say about Trump? New book argues his legacy is more important than ever
As Malcolm X's centenary approaches on May 19, books about his life have been flowing fast, furious and by any means necessary. Two — Manning Marable's 'Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention' (2011) and Les and Tamara Payne's 'The Dead Are Arising: The Life of Malcolm X' (2020) — won Pulitzer Prizes. Mark Whitaker's 'The Afterlife of Malcolm X: An Outcast Turned Icon's Enduring Impact on America' arrives Tuesday.
'Malcolm Lives!' is different from the above in one obvious way: It is intended for readers between the ages of 10 and 14. It is disarmingly blunt and direct. Perhaps to the dismay of the censorious, it is also instructional.
In other words, it is a school library book banner's worst nightmare.
'Malcolm has the ability to teach every young reader that no matter the challenges that they're facing, the adversity that they're facing in this moment, they have the potential and the capacity to become a great historical figure like Malcolm X,' Kendi said. 'To me, that's one of the most interesting aspects of his story. With everything he endured as a young person, he still was able to navigate everything and become this pivotal and influential figure.'
Kendi hopes 'Malcolm Lives!' might find its way into the hands of readers not unlike the young Malcolm. As Malcolm Little, he was a petty crook who didn't fully discover the power of reading until he was incarcerated — at which point he began devouring books like food. He memorized the dictionary. He studied Islamic texts and Black history. He read H.G. Wells, W.E.B. DuBois, Nietzsche and Kant. 'He was a young person in prison heading nowhere,' Kendi said. 'And it was books that led him to become the person that we know of to this day.'
So when Kendi approached the task of introducing Malcolm to today's young readers, he thought about the impact 'Malcolm Lives!' might have on someone encountering not just Malcolm for the first time, but exploring books for the first time. He knows books can unlock new worlds, which is one reason so many books, including those written by Kendi, have been banned. After all, it's not the physical book that poses a threat, it's the ideas contained therein and their capacity to provoke someone to think differently — and perhaps to hope.
Read more: Malcolm X's full story will never be told. These biographies explain why
'When I think about putting this book in the world, I think about how this book can be the book that allows a Black child to realize that they are important, that they have potential, even if that child is incarcerated,' he said. 'Or it could be the book that allows a white child to realize the problem isn't Black people, which then prevents that white child from going down a path in which they end up harming a Black child and therefore harming their own sort of life chances.
'I mean, this is important work.'
Get the latest book news, events and more in your inbox every Saturday.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain
Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain

Refinery29

time3 hours ago

  • Refinery29

Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain

When news broke that Diane Abbott had been suspended again by the Labour Party for doubling down on her comments about Irish, Jewish and Traveller communities not experiencing racism, I wasn't surprised. Frustrated? Sure. But surprised? Not really. We've seen this playbook before, especially when it comes to Black women who dare to speak boldly and unapologetically. For context, in 2023, Abbott wrote in a letter to The Observer that while Irish, Jewish and Traveller communities experience prejudice, they don't experience racism in the same way as Black people. The backlash she faced was immediate, with the Labour Party suspending her and Keir Starmer labelling her comments as antisemitic. Eventually, she apologised, withdrew her remarks, and was reinstated just in time to stand as a Labour candidate in last year's general election. Recently, when she was asked if she regretted her comments in a BBC radio interview broadcast two weeks ago, she said, 'No, not at all," adding: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism, because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.' It was these remarks that led to her being suspended once again. Let's be clear: what Diane Abbott originally said the first time around was poorly worded, lacked the nuance required, and, legally, was false. While Jewish and Traveller communities are not necessarily racial groups, they are ethnic groups, because they have a collective identity based on shared history, culture and ancestral ties. And under UK law — specifically, the Equality Act 2010 — these ethnic groups are protected as 'races' to prevent them from becoming subject to discrimination. So, although these communities may not constitute as races, they can still, by law, experience racism — making Diane Abbott's claim partly wrong, but not wholly wrong. Ultimately, how we define race can get messy. What really is 'race', anyway? Quite frankly, it's an obsolete term that was created by European scientists during the Enlightenment period to ascribe varying levels of 'intelligence' to people of different skin colours. The very concept of race, therefore, is rooted in prejudice towards people of colour. It has always been weaponised against us and used as a tool to justify white supremacy, the myth of Black inferiority, and atrocities such as slavery and colonialism. This is why there was a very valid truth in what Diane Abbott said, and the backlash she faced tells us more about Britain's discomfort with conversations on race than it does about any single line in her letter. After all, if race as a social construct was created to legitimise the dehumanisation and commodification of Black and brown bodies, then is it wholly wrong to claim that people of colour have a monopoly over the experience of racism? For Black and brown people, racial prejudice plays out differently because we don't get to hide the difference in our identity. We can't take off our skin and put it back on as we please, in the same way a Jewish man can with a kippah or a Roma woman can with a dikhlo headscarf. We have no choice but to wear the very thing that subjects us to hostility and violence everywhere we go. ' Diane Abbott's comments warranted some correction, yes. But they also deserve context. Because if we can't have difficult conversations about the clear differences in how racism operates — in how it shows up depending on who you are and what you look like — then we're not fighting racism. ' I'll never forget when I was refused entry into a club in France while studying abroad. There I was, dressed up, standing outside the club while the white girls I was with were all waved through with ease just minutes earlier. Even after explaining I was with them, and one of them vouched for me, he refused to budge — then let in more white girls after me. Not much needed to be said. His cold glare spoke a thousand words. I wasn't good enough to enter the club because I was Black. It was humiliating. That's what racism rooted in skin colour does. It denies you your humanity before you've even opened your mouth. Just by laying their eyes on you, people decide, 'You don't belong here'. The socioeconomic impact of this is striking. According to the McGregor-Smith Review, people of colour in the UK are less likely to be hired and routinely face hiring discrimination based on their names, racial disparities which cost the UK economy £24 billion annually. We're also less likely to receive business investment or approval for bank loans. In the criminal justice system, we're more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested, and Black defendants are 40% more likely to be jailed than white defendants for the same offences. These aren't just perceptions. They're real-life consequences of institutional racism. And beyond the material impact is the psychological toll of constantly seeing Black bodies brutalised in headlines, on social media, and in the streets we walk every day. I grew up hearing about my male friends getting roughed up by the police for no reason other than the fact that they were teenage Black boys. We were just kids, but society had already decided we were threats. That feeling of constantly being 'othered' simply because of the colour of your skin does something to you. It wears you down. It's a feeling that Diane Abbott is all too familiar with. After all, she was the first Black woman ever to be elected to Parliament and has endured constant racist and sexist abuse throughout her political career. According to Amnesty International, she received almost half of all abusive tweets directed at female MPs in the 2017 election. So when she tried to draw a line between racism faced by people of colour and prejudice faced by other minority communities, she was speaking from her lived experience. I got what she meant. So did most people of colour. It's not that one experience of hostility is worse than another; it's that they're not the same. That difference deserves interrogation, not silencing. But instead of engaging with nuance, Labour weaponised her words – and her apology – against her. It's hard to ignore the fact that this all happened under the leadership of Keir Starmer — a man who called Black Lives Matter 'a moment', and delivered a speech that claimed that further immigration would risk making the UK an 'island of strangers'. Besides, Starmer has been unequivocally vocal about denouncing the 'stain' of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, promising to 'tear out this poison by its roots'. But if suspending Diane Abbott is part of his attempt to do just this, then he is barking up the wrong bush. As Abbott rightly said, any rational, 'fair-minded person' should be able to accept that there is a distinction between racism towards people of colour and discrimination towards white people who have their own ethnic subculture. To pretend this is not the case is simply disingenuous, and, in some way, can be seen as invalidating the reality of racism and its scientific roots. In a statement reacting to her suspension, Abbott said, 'It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out.' She is probably right. This whole scandal isn't about standards or values. It's about punishing a Black woman for making white people uncomfortable, and doing it loudly and unapologetically. Diane Abbott's comments warranted some correction, yes. But they also deserve context. Because if we can't have difficult conversations about the clear differences in how racism operates — in how it shows up depending on who you are and what you look like — then we're not fighting racism. We're oversimplifying it and protecting white feelings. And that helps no one.

Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students
Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students

Axios

time4 hours ago

  • Axios

Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students

Republican-leaning states, once at the forefront of laws helping undocumented students pay in-state college tuition, are trying to roll back that access thanks to pressure from President Trump. Why it matters: Around 8% of the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants are under 18, and the ending of in-state tuition would make college unaffordable if those laws are reversed. Without in-state tuition, undocumented immigrants who have gone through the state's public school system would still have to pay out-of-state or international rates to attend public colleges and universities. Catch up quick: The repeal efforts follow a Trump administration federal lawsuit filed in June to block the enforcement of Texas laws that grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. The complaint states that federal policy bars undocumented immigrants from receiving "tuition benefits denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens," citing Trump's executive orders that instructed agencies to block such practices. The Department of Justice and Texas then reached an agreement to end the two-decades-old law. The DOJ followed with similar lawsuits in Minnesota and Kentucky. Zoom out: According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, 24 states and the District of Columbia offer in-state tuition to undocumented students — though Florida repealed its policy earlier this year. Republicans in many of those states are pushing for their legislatures to repeal their laws. State of play: The Trump administration's move against in-state tuition for undocumented students is one of many to make life difficult for immigrants amid a mass deportation plan. The IRS has agreed to share the personal information of undocumented taxpayers with immigration authorities, for example. What they're saying: "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement. The Trump administration says federal law prohibits public institutions of higher education from providing benefits to undocumented immigrants that are not offered to U.S. citizens. Yes, but: Many of the laws are designed to aid undocumented students who've attended high school for several years to qualify for in-state tuition, just like other state residents. Any student who has not lived in the state for a specified number of years prior must pay out-of-state tuition, regardless of their status. However, some states participate in a consortium that allows in-state tuition to be applied across state lines at certain universities for all state residents who meet the qualifications. The other side: " Ending in-state tuition is a deliberate and wicked effort to keep predominantly Black and brown immigrant students in a permanent caste in society where they are underpaid and exploited," Juan Martinez-Guevara of the advocacy group United We Dream told reporters last week. Advocates argue that states will lose revenue and talent by forcing college-potential students into menial jobs. The rollbacks are "putting in jeopardy the dreams and aspirations of our students," said Gladys Fatima Marquez, an executive committee member at the National Education Association. Between the lines: The push to repeal is a shift from Republicans of the President George W. Bush era, who championed in-state tuition for undocumented students and pathways for citizenship through military service. Bush and his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had long preached that such policy goals were economically beneficial to the country. Texas was the first state to pass a "tuition equity" law, or local Dream Act, when lawmakers approved legislation in 2001. Following Texas, other states like New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska began allowing immigrants access to in-state tuition. The intrigue: Some left-leaning states, such as California and Massachusetts, were slower to pass similar measures. What we're watching: Democratic attorneys general could put up a fight against the Trump administration's rollback.

Kamala Harris' 2028 Chances Nosedive As She Returns To Spotlight
Kamala Harris' 2028 Chances Nosedive As She Returns To Spotlight

Newsweek

time5 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Kamala Harris' 2028 Chances Nosedive As She Returns To Spotlight

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former Vice President Kamala Harris' standing among Democratic voters has plummeted in recent months, according to recent polling by RacetotheWH. Newsweek has contacted Harris for comment via email. Why It Matters The downturn marks a sharp reversal for one of the party's most recognizable figures. Harris, who stepped in as the Democratic candidate in 2024 following President Joe Biden's late withdrawal amid concerns over his age and mental fitness, ultimately lost to President Donald Trump in the general election, securing 226 Electoral College votes to the Republican's 312. Her recent decision not to enter California's 2026 gubernatorial race had reignited speculation about whether she is weighing another presidential run in 2028. Kamala Harris speaks at Howard University in Washington, D.C., on November 6, 2024. Kamala Harris speaks at Howard University in Washington, D.C., on November 6, 2024. ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images What To Know The latest data on August 4 shows Harris with just 21.1 percent support in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary field, marking a 14-point drop since March and down 13.7 percentage points from the beginning of the year, when she stood at 34.8 percent on January 1. Several of her would-be rivals, including former Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg and California Governor Gavin Newsom, have gained ground over the same period. Buttigieg has climbed to 17.4 percent, up from 10 percent in March and just 7 percent in January. Newsom rose to 12.7 percent, up from his January figure of 7.3 percent, while New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez surged to 11.9 percent, up from 2.9 percent in January. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also posted modest gains. The figures were published by RacetotheWH, a U.S.-based pollster with a strong track record since its launch in 2020. The site is following the latest presidential primary polls for the 2028 election. Its data shows Harris' support has nosedived since spring: March 1: 35.1 percent April 1: 34.9 percent May 10: 27.2 percent June 1: 24 percent July 10: 24 percent August 4: 21.1 percent The latest figures come on the heels of Harris' return to the national spotlight. In her first public interview since losing to Trump, she spoke with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show, expressing disillusionment with national politics. She had announced the day before that she would not be running for California governor. Meanwhile, her announcement that she is publishing a book about her failed 2024 presidential campaign, titled 107 Days, with reference to the period she spent vying with Trump, has been panned by conservative critics. What People Are Saying Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert on The Late Show on Thursday night: "Recently I made the decision that I—just for now—I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken. "I always believed, that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be. And for now I don't want to go back into that system." What Happens Next RacetotheWH will continue to monitor national and state-level polling trends as potential candidates position themselves for the next presidential cycle.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store