Nicki Minaj Slammed by Malcolm X’s Daughter, Harlem for ‘Ignorant’ Promotion

Nicki Minaj target of backlash for using Malcolm X to promote new single Nicki Minaj apologized to the Malcolm X estate after the civil rights leader’s daughter, Ilyasah Shabazz, called out the pop star for using her father’s image in an attempt to promote her new single online.

Rap star and pop sensation Minaj released a new single titled “Lookin A** N***a,” but when she decided to use an image of Malcolm X to promote the new song Malcolm X’s daughter and Harlem officials were immediately outraged.

The photo shows Malcolm X holding a rifle and looking through a window during a time when he feared for his life according to Jacob Morris, the head of the Harlem Historical Society.

“Ms. Minaj’s artwork for her single does not depict the truth of Malcolm X’s legacy, is completely disrespectful, and in no way is endorsed by my family,” Shabazz told the Daily News on Friday about the controversial image.

She went on to say that she hopes her father’s true legacy will be remembered and not the image that the pop star wanted to use to promote a new song.

“It is our family’s hope that the true legacy and context of Malcolm X’s life continues to be shared with people from all walks of life in a positive manner that helps promote the goals and ideals for which Malcolm X so passionately advocated,” Shabazz said.

Minaj has since removed the artwork from her social media accounts and explained that it was never the official artwork for the single. The apology wasn’t enough for Morris.

Nicki Minaj Malcolm X controversy Morris explained that the use of the image infuriated him because it is such a far representation from what Malcolm X  stood for.

“I’m angry because that’s not what he stood for,” Morris said. “For his image to be misused this way, it’s despicable.”

As for the apology, Morris felt it was insincere and too little too late.

“Put up some money instead of some phony words,” Morris said. “It’s disgraceful to attach the n-word to him – flat out.”

One Harlem community organizer, Iesha Sekou, described the use of the image as “horrible” and said Minaj showed “major disrespect.”

Others felt as if the term “disrespectful” was too light.

“It’s more ignorant than disrespectful,” said Chris Moore, a historian at the Schomburg Center for Research and Black Culture in Harlem. “She should pick up a book – and her fans, too.”

Morris still insists that Minaj should donate to a charity that Malcolm X would have supported. So far, it doesn’t look like as if Minaj is going to follow through with that suggestion.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top