Good afternoon.  My thanks to Herb Boyd for inviting me to participate on this panel and my thanks to Herb and Haki Madhubuti for inviting me to contribute to the book of essays in response to the publication of Manning Marable’s Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.

Once we have established that Malcolm X was not the Messiah, nor was he the Mahdi in either the Sunni or Shia traditions, it should, at least theoretically, be possible to engage in a discussion about MX and his legacy.

The one obstacle to such a discussion, however, was summed up by one activist when they proclaimed—in condemning Marable’s Malcolm X:  A life of Reinvention—that the people need icons.  When I read this I realized that what it meant was that some people believe that it is neither possible nor appropriate to undertake a materialist examination of our beloved brother.  And further, that anything that suggests that MX was anything less than perfect somehow betrays our love and respect for our brother.

The controversy that surrounded the publication of Marable’s book was extraordinary, less due to the content of the controversy and more due to the tone.  Leaving aside that Marable had just died, the anger, homophobia, and indeed hatred, was venomous.  It was noteworthy in that attacks on Marable’s character and politics were undertaken not only by historic opponents but also, at least in some cases, by individuals who Marable considered to have been friends and comrades, individuals who in some cases Marable generously supported in various ways.

I decided, in speaking here today, not to go tit-for-tat in this odd debate except to make a few points, after which I want to address some of the key issues raised in Marable’s book that I believe are truly worthy of exploration.

First, this will not be the last MX book.  However, the standard set by Marable for research will be difficult to match by any subsequent writers.

Second, it is clear, should we wish to be honest, that the attacks are largely about Marable himself.  I have written some about this and will not belabor the point.  The bottom line is that MX was commodified after his death not only by capitalists (in the 1980s) but even by some on the Left and nationalist movements.  These individuals, either through conferences, bookstores, or other items, came to believe that they, and only they could lay claim to the legacy of MX.  Marable, in that sense, was an interloper as far as they were concerned, not to mention an academic at a prestigious university.

But a related point is that Marable dared to push the life and work of MX onto the mainstream stage…but from the Left.  For some individuals, that was simply impermissible.  MX was to be worshipped in private, or at best, within an all-black arena.

Third, some of the criticisms are simply silly, if not examples of sophistry.  Let me offer an example that struck me.  One former colleague of Marable criticized the book for allegedly distorting MX’s life and legacy.  One example pointed to was Marable’s reference to how MX would have supported the Durban United Nations World Conference Against Racism (2001).  This writer indicated that MX would never have supported a dialogue with imperialists.

If you read what Marable actually said it will indicate that this critic was simply wrong in their interpretation, not to mention their intent.  Marable was talking about the NGO forum that was connected with the UNWCAR where progressive forces from around the world gathered.  Yet, I do not believe that this critic could not have known this.  I think that this was simply a jab at Marable; an attempt to take him down a peg and to delegitimize the book.  Well, the attempt failed.

Another example, often touted by some well-intentioned comrades, was the reference in the final chapter to MX adopting an alleged “race neutral” approach to his theory, with Pan Africanism and Third World solidarity used as examples.  Marable was jumped upon like white on rice for this reference.

Now, the reference is peculiar.  I read an earlier draft and that reference was not there.  I concluded that one of two things happened.  It was either a poor choice of words by Marable or the editor made the change.  But let’s assume that it was a poor choice of words.  Is there anything in the work and writings of Marable to lead any person not suffering from Alzheimer’s to believe that Marable could POSSIBLY have meant “race neutral” in the way that the term is used in the USA?  Of course not.  Marable was pointing to the challenge that MX himself acknowledged of how to describe his evolving politics.  They were some combination of revolutionary nationalist, pro-socialist, Pan Africanist, and Third World-ist, with a bit of Islamism thrown in there for good measure.  But MX acknowledged, after speaking with a North African, light-skinned revolutionary, that “black nationalist” might not adequately describe his evolving views.

Perhaps “race neutral” was an editor’s interpretation of the expression “non-racial”, a term that is used in South Africa to describe anti-racist politics, but a term that we do not use here in the USA.  Given Marable’s affinity with the South African movement he may have used it.  Having had my own issues with editors I can believe that this might have been changed by a US editor attempting to—unsuccessfully—make this clearer to a US audience.

In any case, there are other people who were much more intimately involved with the writing of the book, such as Zaheer Ali, who can go head to head with anyone on the particulars of the book.  Let me suggest that the book stands as a marvelous contribution to the on-going discussion of the life and work of MX.  Perhaps when my generation is dead, a generation that venerated MX; a generation that had MX at the heart of our politics; perhaps only then will we be able to step back and truly examine MX’s life and work without obscene and infantile efforts to impugn the character of this or that writer.

Let me shift to a few of the critical points in the book that I believe to be worthy of serious discussion:

1.    The circumstances of the assassination

2.    Questions of organization

3.    Gender

4.    Reform and revolution.

The assassination is worthy of discussion alone not only due to the information that Marable reveals about the possible assailants but also about the circumstances that made the assassination possible.  Marable proposes that three forces had an interest in MX’s demise:  the NOI, the State, and some elements within his own organization.

MX found himself in a cul de sac by late 1964.  He was moving at light speed compared with much of his organization.  He was also driven by a fury at circumstances within the NOI that had led to his having been driven out.  What was striking in reading the book was that you want to yell at MX and beg him to pull up; to be more carefully, tactically.  Yet he kept prodding the NOI.

The State clearly wanted his demise, so there is little to discuss there.

But it was this question of people within his own organization that caught my attention and it relates to several other matters.  MX had a set of loyal followers who were not necessarily with him politically.  As MX evolved, they did not necessarily also evolve, and precisely on the matter of gender, as women were starting to rise within the Organization of Afro-American Unity.  This created tension with some of the older, male followers.  On top of this, MX had two organizations that he was attempting to manage.

It is, in fact, this matter of organization that jumps out at the reader.  MX needed to have a general secretary or executive director who was clearly empowered to lead the organization.  Yet MX appears to have been unclear about the division of labor between himself and some of his chief aids.

This challenge reminded me of the story of the building of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and the division of labor—which succeeded—between its President, A. Philip Randolph, and its chief organizer, Milton P. Webster.  Detailed in the book Keeping The Faith (by William H. Harris), what struck me is that while Randolph was clearly the political leader of the Brotherhood, the organization would have gone nowhere without the brilliance of Webster who was the person who awoke every morning thinking about the challenges of organization.  The relationship between these two individuals was critical.

The matter of gender, as discussed by Marable, has been sensitive on several grounds but is no less important.  I am not going to engage in the discussion about Malcolm’s possible same-sex relationship.  When I read the draft of the book, that section was so unimportant that when the controversy arose with its publication I thought that it was a different book.

MX was, for much of his life, not at the vanguard of the struggle against male supremacy.  He had a complicated view of his mother as well as of various women partners.  He, apparently, had a caring relationship toward Betty Shabazz, but one that was not entirely satisfying.  He was willing to seek help in trying to work through the issues in this relationship, but some of those issues appear to have revolved around unresolved matters concerning the woman he actually had loved and wanted to marry but who ended up being impregnated by Elijah Muhammad.

But the story does not end there.  During the final period of his life his views seemed to change and he actively engaged women in the construction of his ultimate political project, the Organization for Afro-American Unity.  This takes us full circle to the circumstances surrounding his murder.   His breaking with the crude misogynism of his Nation of Islam days was linked to an evolution in his politics that started—and we must stay STARTED—to envision a liberated view of women.  This journey was far from complete.

Finally, the issue of reform and revolution.  Some critics have suggested that Marable attempted to describe a MX that looked like Marable.  I found this humorous.  Though Marable worshipped MX, he was enough in touch with his ego and personality, not to mention his politics, to know that he and MX were quite different.

MX was grappling with the interaction of reform and revolutionary politics and practices.  The combination of global solidarity and anti-imperialism on the one hand, with his interest in electoral politics points towards a political practice along the lines of the National Black Political Assembly.  In other words, the NBPA was a logical conclusion from a set of MX’s politics.  While it is true that Marable was connected with the outgrowth of the NBPA—the National Black Independent Political Party—Marable was not describing his own evolution.

MX was attempting to address what it meant to engage in pro-black, progressive politics in a non-revolutionary situation.  He seemed to be open to various coalitions, but his views were, frankly and with all due respect, too undeveloped to draw any major conclusions.

I, for one, am interested in exploring these issues.  Whether Marable sufficiently applauded other writers who examined the life and work of Malcolm X is less my concern.  I have been going over Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States and noticed that he spent very little time commenting on other writers of US history.  Zinn was interested in presenting a narrative before the people to spark debate and answer many questions with which activists and regular people have been grappling. Manning had a similar objective.  There is little doubt that despite the protests and hurt feelings on the part of some who believe that they and only they hold the MX franchise, Marable succeeded.

Thank you.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfricaForum and co-author of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice (University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here o contact Mr. Fletcher.