From: stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski)
Subject: Re: The Sabotage of Malcolm X
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:29:48 GMT

Referring to Malcolm X, Gabrielle Daniels wrote:

:The man was a bodhisattva, a person who deeply cares for the lives
:of others.  This was particularly true when he went back to the old
:neighborhood and hunted up West Indian Archie and others to try to
:save their lives. When he couldn't, he went out and tried to help
:other black people.

Unfortunately, Malcolm's abiding love for black people existed,
un-Bodhisattvalike, alongside a pathological hatred for whites.  We
know that some of the white folks that he encountered during his early
years treated him like dirt, others showed kindness and respect. We
also know that they didn't burn down his house or murder his
father. Yet, in prison, he converted to a bizarre religion that
branded all whites as evil mutant freaks. When he became a national
figure, he was exposed to the whole cross-section of this nation's
people, black and white, good and bad. He was constantly upbraided for
preaching that whites were responsible for every calamity that ever
befell this planet: from the extinction of the dinosaurs to Philip
Stromer. But, time and again, he returned to Elijah Muhammad's
hateful teachings, even though any reasonably-intelligent ten year-old
could have explained to him that wickedness is not confined to any one
race. This went on for YEARS. After his death, his bitter legacy
lingers on: witness the recent FBI statistics that show black-on-white
hate crimes as being much more prevalent than the white-on-black
variety.  And there are still those who, like Malcolm X, mindlessly
denounce ALL of European civilization, thus denying themselves  
its many blessings and, tragically, ensuring for themselves a
permanent place on the remotest margins of power and responsibility in
our society.

I view Malcolm as a an example of what historian Philip Johnson calls
a "gangster politician", a unique product of our wretched and bloody
century. Others are Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Lumumba, Pol Pot, etc.  They
were all brilliant, articulate (except for Uncle Joe, I guess) men who
had a deep love for their people, and were profoundly angry at the
injustices that they claimed had been visited upon their beloved
followers. They also viewed their adversaries not as actual human
beings, but as faceless theoretical constructs - products of immutable
"historical laws" (or, in Malcolm's twisted theology, of botched genetic
experiments) of which they held the secret. Thus, anyone they didn't
like was never a real person, but a kulak, or a wrecker, or whitey, a
nigger, a dirty Jew, or a bourgeois exploiter. Whenever these heroes
came to power, they murdered, starved and gassed millions. After all,
they were only carrying out History's verdict.  There was, of course,
never any chance that Malcolm X would achieve real power in
America since, besides being exposed to J. Edgar's tender scrutiny,
he managed to burn his bridges in every possible direction. Thus, 
he died alone. His is a moving, tragic story, but it will take a 
braver and wiser man than Spike Lee to bring that story to the screen.

Malcolm apologists naturally downplay his racism, since he cared so
strongly for his own people, and was so brilliant as skewering his
racist opponents. This is a familiar scenario. How many of us
have been introduced to Charlie Whiteman - great guy, pillar of the
community, Little League coach, saved a guy from drowning last year,
fine father and husband. There is, uh, only one tiny little, er,
problem: he hates blacks, gays and uppity women. But, hey, nobody's
perfect, right? So lets take Charlie into our hearts, right? Wrong.
Sorry, Charlie. Sorry, Malcolm.

Stefan