I'm terribly sorry. My working-class roots are showing. I apologize. I have to confess that I'm not a petit-bourgeoise, but I sometimes play one on the Internet.
> In responding to me, he can't even get right that it was
> Malcolm X himself who felt ashamed of what he done as a member of the NOI,
> not the white left who shamed Malcolm X. Indeed we find here a reluctance
> of the white left, starting with the SWP, to express criticism of
> Malcolm. Of course the right will dis him for his violence, but the white
> left seems hardly bothered by his separatism, black belt secessionism,
> open support for nascent third world fascists, and ill defined black
> nationalism. We are just happy to have him as a hero and assimilate him
> into all our multiculti syllabi.
I think that most of the folks here missed my point, so let me attempt to provide some clarification.
First of all, I'm not arguing with you about the issue of whether Malcolm did some reprehensible things. After all, he was essentially a common criminal pre-NOI, or at least that's how the legend reads.
I am also aware of the fact that Marcus Garvey and the UNIA had similar types of meetings with the KKK way "back in the day" (excuse my use of such colloquial phrasing, but it's a bad habit of mine).
This almost seems to be a pattern with Black nationalist groups.
Second, the issue is not whether the "white" Left has failed to criticize him enough, since his most important role is as a symbol to Black people, and the white Left has little influence over them. The issue is what do you do if Black people continue to admire him, in spite of your attempts to impart the "truth" to them.
In other words, the reason that "figures of color" are assimilated by the Left is in the hope that they will draw more people of color to their organizations and sects. The Left doesn't need a Malcolm X to draw in more white Leftists, they're hunting for Black folks.
The problem is that any definition of someone like Malcolm that doesn't have the smell of Black authenticity (please don't ask me to define what I'm talking about - you know what I mean by the loose terminology), is usually rejected outright. Unless Black people define Malcolm for themselves, none of the other debates and claims on his legacy matter.
Sure, some whites would be impressed if an org was able to make a claim on Malcolm, but any self-respecting person knows that the real target is the constituency which the symbol held sway over.
The questions are:
1. Why does nationalism continue to resonate so strongly with Black people, especially here in the U.S.?
2. Do your writings or the debates on this list have any connection to or understanding of actual struggles, or are they merely a form of academic masturbation?
3. If Black people are aware of the failings of people like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, but they continue to worship them anyway, does that say more about Black people, or the system under which they are oppressed?
4. Using your writings as a base, how would you begin a dialogue with Black people who admire them?
5. If these Black people continued to admire them, even after you had presented your evidence, what would you do next?
6. Outside of this discussion of nationalism, what ideas do you have for organizing or speaking to concerns of the masses of poor and working class Blacks, keeping in mind that many of them have a strong distaste for the usual forms of class-based doctrine?
7. If they are less responsive to you than you hope they will be, what will you do next?
Art