Now we agree that Malcolm X's criticism of the NOI does not undermine all black nationalism--though Malcolm X himself could no longer describe himself as a black nationalist after the break with the NOI (though as Patricia Hill Collins has argued Malcolm X never did develop domestic economic ideas that went beyond petty bourgeois development in the ghetto or economic secession in the black belt). But Malcolm X's own uncertainty makes your defense of black nationalism rather bizarre.
I should also say that my criticism of the Uhuru House was not meant as criticism of the black nationalism but only of the Uhuru House which someone suggested may be behind the revival of the Black Panther Party in my old hometown of Oakland (that criticism was posted under the title Oakland politics, not black nationalism). It was not meant moreover as a criticism of the BRC. And I did not offer only a personal anecdote about the Uhuru House but pointed to an inconsistency in its major theoretical analysis.
I think it is arbitary for you to put those several struggles from the 70s under the rubric of black nationalism. At least it makes it impossible to determine what you mean by the black nationalism you are defending. I have never denied the importance of an autonomous struggle against racism; my criticism of the BRC was focused on its racial exclusivity which it later relaxed (especially in a recent statement by Abdul Alkalimat whose textbook and work on Harold Washington I used both in college and high school teaching), though I have spoken in favor of labor and socialist congresses in which there are black caucases. I continue to worry that the BRC will drain blacks away from such organizations to the detriment of the radical development of us all, and I consider this a frightful consequence of the kind of black separatism that the Million Man March has made respectable. I raise the concern openly with every hope of encouraging the thoughtful conter criticism you offer in your last post.
Yours, Rakesh