From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re:
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:33:13 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1993Jan8.152140.12579@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> glovercj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.181930.7922@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski) writes:
>>
>>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. 
>>Stefan
>>

>I think you are truly lacking in your understanding of Malcolm X, the belief
>that"all whites are devils" was Pre Mecca Malcolm, but after that point, there
>was a new Malcolm, a Malcolm that had learned from his mistakes and did not
preach wide spreading generalizations. I can not believe you would make such an
>ignorant statement, apparently you have decided to believe what the media
>portrayed Malcolm as, even after he transgressed racism. You have neither read
>the autiobiography, nor have you seen the movie.

I'm sure Stefan can defend himself.  However, if you had read his
entire article, you would have realized that his primary point was
that it took Malcolm so long to recognize the rather commonplace fact
that good and evil aren't the exclusive possessions of particular
races.

That it took Malcolm over 10 years to recognize that skin color is
unrelated to the moral worth of an individual, and that the theology
of the NOI is unreconstruced hucksterism, does not reflect well on his
character.  In particular, it reflects on the appeal to him of the
Other-anihilating philosphy that NOI (and Nazism and Leninism) represents.

That he realized he made a horrible mistake a year before his death
only partially redeems him.  He was largely ineffectual as a leader
during that year, and while we may speculate about what he might have
accomplished, the fact is, he didn't accomplish very much under this
new guise.

In his defense, Malcolm came from an extremely benighted background
and had little formal education.  He came under the influence of an
ideology which offered solutions to a very obvious problem, at a time
when little else was available as an alternative.  Many people who
become zealots for a cause never find it in themselves to admit that
they made a mistake.  Malcolm did so, and that's to his credit.  

Personally, I think hero-worship of any kind is bad politics, since it
tends to result in personality cults, a dependent relationship to
messianic leaders, and the atrophy of real (as opposed to cliche'd)
critical thinking.  All of which strike me as chronic problems in the
black community.

If 1/10th of all the energy that went into rhetorical posturing about
Malcolm X's memory went into addressing the concrete problems of black
america with a cold unsentimental eye, we'd all be better off.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.african