In the searing pages of this classic autobiography, originally published in 1964, Malcolm X, the Muslim leader, firebrand, and anti-integrationist, tells the extraordinary story of his life and the growth of the Black Muslim movement. The big question is WHY? Did Alex Haley do this himself? Was it Playboy that did it or somebody more sinister like J.ONE OF TIME’S TEN MOST IMPORTANT NONFICTION BOOKS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
We should not forget it was Haley that co-wrote “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” and The Roots saga, boy have had questions around the works for historical inaccuracies and as well as plagiarism. The is a cardinal journalistic sin and Haley is once again maligned as a write and author. The published interview makes it seem like he was dissing Malcolm. King does not agree with all of Malcolm’s views, but he stated that he might have the answers in that Islamic brain of his. The book “King: A Life”says that King was misquoted.Įig discovered an 84-page RAW transcript of the full interview and it says that King was way more open-minded about Malcolm X than advertised by the government. It essentially caused a huge beef between the two leaders. This interview was published and republished time and time again through the years.
Journalist Alex Haley, who was 43 at that time, conducted a long interview with Martin Luther King Jr., who was then a mere 36, for Playboy magazine. We knew it was always BS, because if you study them, you know they were more similar than different.
The narrative has always been that King and Malcolm X had irreconcilable differences in their approaches to the civil rights movement. King reportedly said that Malcolm’s “fiery, demagogic oratory” was the reason that there was a chasm between the men philosophically. Basically, author Jonathan Eig, in his research, reveals that a famous criticism of Malcolm X by Dr Martin Luther King Jr in 1965 was falsified! WHAT? Said interview was with Playboy magazine and was conducted by Alex Haley. A new book, “King: A Life,” has unveiled a historical mistruth.
0 kommentar(er)
