1. At the most basic level, it always feel a little odd to be confidently arguing, whether pros or cons, about something called black nationalism when none of the participants in discussion is a self-identified black nationalist and only a very few of those present are black. Is it only me who feels that this unfortunate demographics produces only a lot of hot air and _nearly zero influence_ on whatever direction political winds might blow in black communities?
2. I think it probably helps us to discuss something a bit more concrete--some specific demands, conflicts, political organizations, etc.--as opposed to trying to debate the nature of black nationalism, which seems to me to be defined completely differently by those who are more critical of it and those who are more supportive of it.
3. I don't think that having an independent black organization equals separatism. Neither do you, right? With a possible exception of die-hard black Muslims, I don't think racial separatism is much of a problem among blacks. If anything, those who are the most enamored of racial separatism in the USA have been and still are privileged whites. I would be more interested in discussing what to do about white suburban separatism than various perspectives on the NOI (which has very little political influence, not to mention power, even among black men). So what I am saying is, the first thing first.
4. I think that leftists often get too excited about discussions of black nationalism when they have nothing much to say about _how_ to defend affirmative action, _how_ to counter racially motivated underfunding of public schools, _how_ to stop the "war on drugs," etc. In other words, hot air about black nationalism functions to cover up the emptiness of our agenda for racial justice (or if we have some kind of agenda, the lack of power to put it into effect).
your friend,
Yoshie