I think in connecting this recent book with West's past sympathy for the NOI and the PK, Katha has revealed a disturbing blind spot in West's politics. Whether he is a sexist or not, he is willing to in practice subordinate feminism for opportunistic participation in media hyped politics of spectacle--as Yoshie has argued. At any rate, how does one justify West's silence about power within the family? And given his confused public objection to no fault divorce, I don't see how a little personal history is off topic.
As for the NOI, I supported the complete rejection of the March for its rather insane exclusion of women and for the sanction it provided to a reactionary numerologist (or George Gilder in black face) and for the inherently reactionary black operational unity it tried to effect.
Robin Kelley, Angela Davis and Adolph Reed also rejected the March and did not participate. Just because racists opposed the march does not make opposition to it reactionary. Indeed the argument could be made that it did more to further racism than undermine it. Anyways, the idea of being called to action by a man who went on later to embrace the Nigerian, Sudanese and Saudi governments is a bit too much to stomach.
But Dan writes the following:
> But I think the NoI is also relatively progressive in re race,
> racism, and perhaps class/capital. Now, please, it is hardly radical or
The agenda of the NOI includes cutting AFDC, reducing the minimum wage, glorifying the theocratic martial law of the Sauds,killing radical rivals within the organization, supporting only for the pettiest of the bourgeoisie, etc. The NOI has the most mystical ideas about race, racist explanations for the behavior of ethnic businessmen. But this is all well known, and that Dan would make such an assertion without any attempt to justify it suggests we are not dealing with an honest man. How do you explain this away? What are your examples of the NOI's relative progressiveness.
Yours, Rakesh