Of course, Malcolm X was not perfect, but his life and political career were, on balance, a radical and progressive influence in African American history and politics. Louis Pro does not have an uncritical assessment of Malcolm X, but Louis Pro takes a practical-critical or revolutionary approach. Louis Pro takes the genuine white radical approach to a genuine black radical, toughing through the rhetoric sharply critical of whites and uniting with the freedomloving and humanist core of Malcolm X's persona. And LP is willing to struggle with other whites on it. In this Proyect gives us a model for the courage necessary for
black /white radical unity.
Oh , here's my stop.
Charles Brown
>>> Jim heartfield <jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> 01/10 1:08 PM >>>
In message <199901101414.JAA27817 at bonjour.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis
Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes
>This is a joke, right? Malcolm X wrote an autobiography to describe his
>political evolution from the NOI to revolutionary nationalism. This
>political evolution cost him his life. So Jim wants to place equal weight
>to the phase of Malcolm X's career that he had repudiated? Why don't we
>then treat Mussolini as a socialist and Lenin as a narodnik since they went
>through these phases before finally arriving at fascism and Marxism
>respectively.
Perhaps if Louis tried to think a little before typing some of the confusions in these discussions would be avoided.
I didn't seek to put emphasis on either side of Malcolm X's career. I only suggested that Malcolm X's reputation amongst different parts of society, might relate to different episodes in his life.
When I see the Black Muslims in Brixton selling the Call and Malcolm X regalia, I suspect that it is not his denunication of the Nation of Islam that they recommends him to them.
I really think that Louis' emotional attachment to Malcolm X is a bit perverse. Every time the hallowed reputation of Malcolm is questioned, Louis reacts in the most thin-skinned way. Why?
I remember over-hearing this exchange on the London Underground. A group of young Pakistanis, two teenage girls and a boy not much older, out buying records and clothes on a Saturday Afternoon were reading out bits of the paper to each other, and commenting on a story about Benazir Bhutto's regime being in trouble (this was a couple of years ago).
Misunderstanding the cynicism in their comments, a woman butted in and started to heap fulsome praise on Benazir Bhutto. 'She is the best hope for Pakistan' said the educated, and alarmingly arrogant woman. 'Yeh but she's corrupt' objected the two girls, adding, as if to soften the blow 'all politicians are corrupt'. 'No you mustn't think that' implored the woman 'Benazir is what Pakistan needs right now, she stands head and shoulders above the rest. You must understand what she is trying to do for your country, you mustn't be apathetic.' And then her stop arrived and she got off.
Looking over at me they said 'what a nutcase! What's she on about?' I knew that it would be impossible to explain why the Bhuttos were so important to white leftists of a certain generation, and why that might make the women overlook the obvious corruption of Benazir's government, so I just shrugged and said 'Yeah, she's a nut'. They were genuinely puzzled, and slightly insulted at this un-called for lecture on 'what's best for Pakistan', something they were ultimately in a better position to judge, even if they were not interested just then. -- Jim heartfield