1. My main focus remains the criticism of the NOI in terms of things its leaders, Malcolm X included, actually do and have done. As I understand it this whole thread began as a discussion of the NOI with which Cornel West had decided to struggle on behalf of the sisters. We seem to be agreed that the NOI may not have the positive qualities Dan V has attributed to it--if its history is any guide to its present. What happened to the debate about whether the NOI, the friend of the Klan, is relatively progressive on questions of race/racism and less so on class/capital--as Daniel V put it.
Malcolm X's heroic exposure of the NOI and his own Klan links, as well as his important criticism of the March on Washington, come only as he becomes more and more critical of the the NOI.
2. Ken argues that Malcolm X could not lend support to SNCC because of its adoption of the tactic of non violence. But as a member of the NOI Malcolm X also stood against the non racialism for which SNCC stood. That is, his opposition was based on more than its tactics until he broke from the NOI. He wanted separatism--separate land and government, a new racially defined nation state.
After the break, he could militate for armed self defense of civil rights workers in the South. Ken does not clarify at what point Malcolm supported the armed self defence of the civil rights workers struggling to bring an end to the world the Klan and NOI wanted to preserve.
Ken seems not to think that a tacit agreement to the maintainence of the separation of races necessarily means that the NOI, ostensibly a black self defense group, could not protect those struggling for desegregation. At any rate, where is the proof that Malcolm X thought his tacit agreement with the Klan was repellant when he entered into it (1961)?
He seems to have been a committed separatist at that point, and he never really broke from that ideology. For example, as interesting as malcolm's criticism of the march on washington was, it was also enunciated from teh point of view of a radical black islamic separatist or at least that ideology was inextricably tied up with his criticism. This renders the criticism quite ambiguous.
Indeed Ken L may think this separatism to be the strength of his thought where I find that it seriously compromises it.
At any rate, that Malcolm X was later ashamed of this tacit agreement is profoundly important. One only wishes those who shared the stage with Farakahn would feel the same shame now. What would have Malcolm thought of the Second March on Washington called for by his killers?
3. No one has denied that Malcolm X's later or latest thought contains contradictory elements. This has been justified in terms of the confusion and challenges of the time. Ken argues that Malcolm X would have been more sympathetic to radical black belt groups (Forman moved in this direction it seems, and I have expressed my disagreement in other places); Louis P seems to tow the SWP line that Malcolm X was about to become an anti imperialist Leninist or champion of the new national bourgeoisies in third world; Henryck likes Malcolm because he opposed the imperialist running dogs. And the islamic and separatist and petty bourgeois elements of his thought remain there until the end. Must hagiography get in the way of an actual analysis of what Malcolm X stood for or believed? If it were clear, then why do widely divergent groups claim him? Is it only a question of getting Malcolm right or understanding what he got wrong as well?
4. I was encouraged by Len Holt to read Malcolm X critically; I also read quite a bit else on the civil rights movements, though I have seem to come across as ignorant to my interlocutors. After reading Malcolm X the book/speeches and the movie critically, I found that it's not simply a matter of Spike Lee downplaying the role of the NOI in his assasination or diluting his radical ideas. It's also a question of Lee not facing up to the many disturbing elements in his thought. Ken wants him to remain a folk hero.
So was Gandhi as people invoked the name of the Mahatma as they engaged in acts that Mohandas spoke against. So there is the question of how the invocation of the folk hero works in social movements or today in the sale of hats and other clothing, and the question of what the folk hero actually thought and fought for. I have not read Jan Carew's study of Malcolm X or Joe Wood's ed collection; perhaps these will make me less critical; perhaps Michael Dyson's study will be illuminating as well. Malcolm X's own words have not made me less critical. But I welcome any insights based on such studies.
5. I have been called overintellectualized , vile, arrogant, idiotic, etc. If I were to tell you how amusing, as well as disturbing, it is for me to read a bunch of angry nasty white men lecturing me about my insenstivity to racism and the struggle against it, then I suppose I will get another message from Doug, cc'ed to the rest of you, telling us all to chill out. So I won't tell you. It does not seem necessary to lace your criticisms of me with so many ad hominem comments. But I am truly impressed with the passion and viciousness these white men have demonstrated in putting me in my place; it augurs well for the future of debate and reason in the US. Unfortunately you all have not scared me into shutting up--though that's the last thing I would imagine reasonable white men would want to do.
I welcome further criticisms but my reply will be delayed. Perhaps more people with different ideas will enter the fray. That would be great.
Rakesh